Positive claims and atheists

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

No proof for Batman, no proof for God. That is the similarity being pointed out in this comparison, they are on par plausibility wise.
Of course, you already knew this didn't you? So may I ask why you chose to waste everyones time by creating a thread that could easily be answered in a sentence and a half? Do you think the people who see this thread will bother to look at others you create considering just how tedious a standard you have just set?

There is also no proof that the external world exists and that you are not in the matrix, or that the world didn't pop into being five minutes ago with the appearance of age--that there is a past. There are likewise no proof for basic logical principles because to argue for their truth would be to presuppose them and so be arguing in a circle.

Therefore, I believe I have shown that you are not justified in considering something absurdly fictional simply because you cannot prove that this something exists as I have given you things that we all rationally believe (the existence of the external world, the past, basic logical principles), yet we don't have evidence for their truth.

Look, you are being a disingenuous twat. Show us how the outside world doesn't exist: go jump. off a fucking skyscraper.

Thank you for admitting that your fairy tale monster is absurdly fictional. However, your rejection of logic, reason, and rationlity only betrays that you are illogical, unreasonable, and irrational.

---

There exists a five legged monkey that rides backwards on a unicorn through an enchanted forrest playing Mozart with cricket legs.

If you do not believe in such an entity, provide evidence for its non-existence.

This is not what I am claiming in this thread. It is evident to all that your example is fictional. However, it is not[b] evident[/] to all that God is fictional. There is therefore a significant difference between God and your example. Also, I am not sure you responded to my original post.

It is not at all "not EVIDENT" (ROOT: EVIDENCE) that your fairy tale monster id fictional.

Pretty fucking stupid for YOU to be referencing EVIDENCE.

---

So?

That something appears self-evident to you says nothing about it's status in reality. Claims of self-evidence are only convincing to those who also find said claims self-evident, unsurprisingly.

Which, incidentally, still leaves the burden of proof firmly on your shoulders.

You don't think it is self-evident that Santa does not exist? if not, what evidence do you base your belief on that there is no Santa?

Evident? I thought you didn't need no steenkin' evidence!

[

Rejecting the Burden of Proof

There are those who will refuse to accept that the burden of proof rests with those making positive claims. They do want to claim that:


"miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."


"souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."


"angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."


"deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

Those who behave in this manner are rejecting the use of reason. They want to believe that X is true or that X exists and to believe it without evidence or even against evidence to the contrary. They want to have their beliefs remain intact and not subject to refutation or to reexamination for fear of needing to alter their beliefs. They rest their beliefs in X existing or in X being true not on evidence and reason but on FAITH and even on BLIND FAITH and when against reason and counterevidence on willfully BLIND FAITH. Such behavior is within the realm of Religion and not at all acceptable amongst those who would pursue Philosophical discourse or who would ask that reason and evidence support claims.


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