I can feel your anger

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Taqiyya Mockingbird
You realise that you're hard to take seriously? You just seem like an angry teenager as your posts have the same impact as " I know you are I said you are but what I am".

Pathetic dodge there, junior.

It's all good if you're here to troll, i just hope you're not aiming for anything else.

I'm here killing trolls with fire. Which is why you're in the hot seat, kiddo.

---

How does one "actively nonbelieve" something? The atheists here actually are privy to a truth of sorts- that there isn't a lick of evidence to support the claim that a God exists.
Who here has said that science is infallible? I'll tell them they are just as wrong as you are. I doubt anyone has said that and I even suspect you made that up, but whatever.

The active non-belief would involve calling yourself an atheist, espousing the ideology/views, coming to an atheist forum etc. I consider existence (both the universe and sentience) to be something which requires an explanation.

Time to knock off this disingenuous dodging of your burden of proof.

Philosophy of Religion Online Textbook, by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino, Professor of Philosophy, Queensborough Community College, CUNY

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...-Proof.htm

Philosophy of Religion

The Burden of Proof

BURDEN OF PROOF

You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. What is improper is for a person to claim that "X exists" and when asked to prove it, then the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the next claim that no one has proven that X does not exist.

If a person claims that X exists and is real then the burden is on that person to supply some support for that claim, some evidence or proof that others can and should examine before accepting it. It is incorrect to think that X exists and is real until someone can prove that there is no X. It is also wrong to think that just because you can not prove that X exists that does not mean that X does not exist and therefore X does exist.

Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes the claim? Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. Some claims might be made with the claimant aware that the claim is not true and some claims might be made with the claimant thinking that they are true but being mistaken. As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking things to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims to offer reason and evidence in support of those claims.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

Burden of Proof

From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.

This is a Fallacy. X is unproven and remains unproven.

Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3)Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

Proof of a Negative Claim

So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.

"Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by Richard Carrier at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...heory.html

It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven. For example, if one claims that there is no apple in the top desk drawer of a desk then all one needs to do is to open the top desk drawer indicated in the claim and examine it for its contents. Finding no apple therein would provide sufficient evidence under ordinary circumstances to verify or confirm the negative claim that there is no apple in the top desk drawer.
In this regard Irving Marmer Copi writes:
“ "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." - Introduction to Logic, Copi, 1953, Page 95

You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk. You make the negative claim that it is not in the drawer and you see it clearly on your wrist. There is no need to look in the drawer.

You can also prove specific negative claims when they involve known impossibilities. For example is someone were to claim that the one and only moon that normally orbits the planet earth was in the top desk drawer. You claim that the moon is not in the desk drawer. There would be no need to look inside because the mass of the moon would not fit inside such a space and were its mass to be condensed its mass would be far greater than the desk could support were the desk made of ordinary earth substances.

You can also prove specific negative claims that can be rephrased as a positive claim. If someone claims that the lights are not on in room 442 that claim can be rephrased as claiming that the lights are off in room 442.

The claim that you can not prove a negative claim is itself a negative claim and would be a self defeating statement or a retortion were it not generally understood to be a limited claim. What is usually meant by the assertion that "One can not prove a negative claim" is that it is not logical to insist on proof of claims or statements of the sort: " There is no such thing as X that exists anywhere at all and at any time at all."

Negative claims in the context of religion are very commonly of this form:

"You can not prove that there is no deity"

"You can not prove that there are no miracles"

These claims are asserted by those holding belief in the existence of such phenomena. They do not usually assert such criticisms against those who claim that there are no phenomena such as those not believed in by the defenders of the existence of a deity or miracles. For example believers in deity or miracles do not criticize those who claim that there are no tooth fairies or that there are no leprechauns. The theists appears to think that the critic of theism is claiming that there are no deities and that such a claim can be proven or has been proven. What is actually being claimed by most critics of the claims that there are deities or miracles is that "There is not sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a deity or a miracle." or that "It has not been proven that there are deities or miracles." The burden of proof is on the claimant of the positive claim that an entity X does exist. The critic of the person making the positive claim that an entity X does exist is asking for evidence in support of that claim and that the evidence be relevant and sufficient to warrant or support the claim.

What evidence would you require to prove a god exsits?
I've asked this several tiems now, and no one addresses the question.

BULLSHIT. I have answered this several times, and you simply ignore it like a twat. You can trot your fairy tale monster over to the CNN studios and have it perform some of its famous parlor tricks. Or you could bring it over to my house, and I'll arrange for media coverage. Pretty simple, really. But you cant do it because your fairy tale monster isn't there.

You either believe, or you don't. You either know, or you don't. But these categories are separate. It doesn't mean anything for one to exclaim their lack of knowledge that God exist, because a theist could say that just as honestly as an atheist.

If it doesn't mean anything, why do only atheists claim it? Conversly it doesn't mean anything for one to exclaim their lack of knowledge that God doesn't exist, but yet here we are.

Disingenuous word salad.

I don't believe and I don't disbellieve. I don't know.

Yet you wallow with the worst of the pigs with your attempts to shift the burden of proof.

It's simple. Science is the best grasp we have on reality, the best tool mankind has to evaluate the universe. To muddle this with philosophical certainty or "truth" is to salt the well of skeptical thinking.

As science is the best tool we have to evaluate the universe mean that it can or will answer the god question? I don't assume this to be true, therefore I don't assign science the value as many atheists do. That said, if science disproved a god (not sure how it would) I would accept it

Science has utterly destroyed claim after claim that the x-tards have made about the nature of the world and the universe. How many more bullshit superstitions and outlandish fairy stories does it have to shoot down to satisfy you? You are simply wallowing in appeals to personal incredulity.

This is why I'm focused on your self-righteousness, because you seem to assume that others are taking a position you consider irrational simply out of the need to look down upon them. I have never, ever claimed to have the intellectual high ground, but then again, you are definitely not concerened with what people acutally believe. You are intent on believing they hold whatever postion you want them to.

We will continue to go round in circles as I see your position as belief based (this is what causes you to view me as self-righteous), yet you see yours as objective.

And again you are being disingenuous and going along with that idiot clive's bullshit shell game.

If you consider that you're without 'belief' most non-atheists will call bullshit.

They can call whatever they like. It doesn't make them right.

Yeah. The fact that they're right makes them right.

Case and point, this is where my perceived self-righteousness kicks in. You're climaing your position of being "without belief" is a fact.
I admit you hold no belief of a god - do you think that you need to subscribe to a set of beliefs (assumptions you hold to be true)to reach an atheistic conclusion?

NO, an atheist doesn't have to believe anything at all. We are all born atheists. It is only after being brainwashed that folks believe in superstitions and fairy tales.

How do you claim to not know and then quote "Those afraid of the universe as it really is..."? I hope you can see where you're contradicting yourself.

I hope you can see the disingenuousness there.

Now you are seriouisly grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to show that I hold a position I have never claimed to hold. The essence of the quote is not about knowing. It is about trying to understand how the cosmos works, regardless of whether it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Besides, it's a quote by Carl Sagan, a self-professed agnostic.

I know who he is, and I perosnally wouldn't desribe him as an agnostic. It's a leading statement, which is atheist in nature to me and is based around using science to construct absolute truth.

"Absolute truth"? See, it's this sort of tomfuckery (along with your rejection of rationality) that leads me to suspect that you are not "agnostic" at all, that you are just one of the many theist twats that troll through atheist forums under a pretense of being agnostic.

Now, you could do a lot for yourself and this conversation if you actually asked people what their position is instead of desperately trying to prove they hold whatever position you want them to.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm telling you how I view your position.

I don't think you will agree with how I view you, for if you did, you wouldn't be an atheist.

....because you are strawmanningn us.

If you want to state your views, go right ahead. As long as we don't hold our breath to convince the other that we're 'right', it's an interesting topic.

Actually your trolling here is boring as fuck.

How hard can it fucking be?

I don't believe in unicorns because of a lack of evidence.

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster because of a lack of evidence.

I don't believe in a whole range of things because of a lack of fucking evidence.

God/s are just another thing I don't believe in because of the lack of evidence.

And until evidence is produced I have no rational reason to do otherwise.

BTW if evidence is ever produced I still won't believe.

I'll KNOW, belief won't be necessary.

So what do you believe to be the cause of existence? Or is there no cause as it's not been proven? If so, how do you rationalise existence (yours) or do you just not think about it?

We don't need to believe anything at all about any of that. There was a rather famous guy who came around long before your Jeebus did, who pointed out that all anyone could do was speculate about such questions, and that any such speculation was useless. He was right. And he was an atheist. After he died, his followers started to make him out to be a god. Over a billion idiots worship and pray to him even now. Enough to make him turn over in his grave. That is, if he weren't 2600 years dead.

---

I'll say this slowly "I. do. not. believe. there. is. a. god. because. there. is. no. evidence"

I do not have a belief in god. It is non belief, disbelief, unbelief. It is NOT belief.

Therefore I cannot answer your question "what justifies that belief"

Why should I hold to evidentialism? Because it is the best way of understanding reality and finding out truth.

Evidence is something you can test, compare, back up a theory with, it can also be used to rule things out that were previously thought true.


And what is wrong with laughing like fuck at those that deny evidentialism?

You're continually missing the point. I can't work out whether it's wilful or not.

WRONG. NC is spot on and has nailed your disingenuousness to the wall. You simply refuse to admit you have been exposed for what you are.

---

Fuck you. Do not dare call me disingenuous, I was arguing against exactly what that moron was arguing for. Go back and learn to read.


This relates exactly to what I was fucking saying, but obviously you wasn't paying attention. This is all hypothetical bullshit, and cannot be proven or tested either way. So why the fuck should we believe in it.

Calm down, why would you care what I think?

Because you are walking into our living room and taking a dump on our coffee table with your disingenuous bullshit, that's why. Why do you care what *I* say? You bleat about how mean I am and use that as cover to run away from my destruction of your incoherent nonsense. No one is fooled at all.

Anyone can call anyone else anything. Just state your case. I've re-read your posts  and still think the same thing. I'm assuming the "moron" is Clive? If so, I agree with him. Which means we were disagreeing. So, do you think Clive was proposing that Evidence is a belief system, based on the post I've re-read and your other posts, it seems so.

He has stated that exactly. try to keep up, kid.

What you've just said illustrates that some atheists are looking for some control in an uncertain universe and this is why you have an overdependence on science.

That is complete and utter bullshit. Strawman much?

"Why should we believe it unless it's not proven or tested" assumes that everything is testable/knowable, for in it's absense you assume it doesn't exist. Why do you assume this?

SEE ABOVE: "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. "

---

I say the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster(PBUHNA) and you know what?

Christians refuse to believe me.

I can't imagine why.

You didn't answer my questions.

You are being evasive, obfuscative and disingenuous.