I can feel your anger

[Ace Otana]

What evidence would you require to prove a god exsits?

To be perfectly honest, I don't know. How can you prove the existence of something that resembles non-existence?
If god doesn't exist, you won't be able to prove it exists. Perhaps this is why you can't prove god exists, there is no god.

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

They pretty much mean the same thing.

Disbelieve -

to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

[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.

[Gambit]

I don't believe I'm ever going to win the lottery, but I could. Now if you tell me I am going to definitely win the lottery, me not believing it doesn't mean it won't happen, it just makes it unlikely because things like that generally don't happen. I tend not to believe in unlikely things, however, it doesn't stop me wondering. I can still hold the position of not believing, while pondering on whether something may or may not be possible. For instance, I can build a range of scenarios in my mind that will explain how I came to win the lottery - Everything from pure coincidence to increased odds from playing more, just in case. It's a fantastical story, but it could actually happen.

In my hypothetical (wishful thinking) scenario, if I were to win the lottery exactly how you foretold, do you know what I would say? "Would you believe it?" Funny turn of phrase that, isn't it? It's especially reserved for events/things that have very little chance of coming to pass or existing. This is the only rational position one can hold when it comes to Gods. If I were to win the lottery I could easily present the evidence of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with the part where you told me that I would win it, either - some would assign it to superstition, while others would accept it as a remarkable coincidence etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is, you can't pigeon hole non/belief into neat little packages. Like, for instance, I don't believe that my kids will tidy their rooms when I tell them to. When they surprise me and actually listen to a damn word I say, I don't start proclaiming miracles - sarcasm aside, of course.

I actually don't know who I'm typing this to, I just wanted to waffle a bit.

How do you know or assess the likelyhood of a god(s)? You seem to have assumed it possesses the same odds as winning the lottery. Why?

I never assumed anything. The point of my post was summed up in the last paragraph; where I pointed out that there are distinct differences between levels of disbelief. I put more stock in me winning the lottery because I have observed people winning the lottery, and have even won it myself on a smaller scale (Scratchcards). I put more stock in my kids surprising me and cleaning their room because sometimes kids do that. I consider the possibility of God(s), eliminate what they are likely not, then assign them to what they possibly are - either outside of natural laws as we know them; or, they don't exist at all.

In all three cases the level of disbelief I hold is based on what I can observe. As far as we know, as of today, God has never been observed. All we have to go by is ancient claims, which we have no way of verifying. When God makes an appearance, my level of belief will increase - after we eliminate optical illusion/trickery as an explanation, of course.

[Whateverist]

I consider existence (both the universe and sentience) to be something which requires an explanation.

This is interesting in a seemingly gotcha way (which I expect you will clear up for me). Some ask for evidence, others for an explanation. If those who expect evidence implicitly carry a believe that lacking evidence is tantamount to lacking existence, what beliefs must one be laboring under to require an explanation?

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

I really have no idea what the answer is to your question. Knowing so little about what a god might be, I have no way of knowing what indicators would signal ones existence. But then, what at a minimum would count as an adequate explanation of the universe and sentience?

Of course not knowing what evidence would rule out the existence of gods doesn't rule out the possible existence of something unknown which we've been calling gods. But does it matter?

I may be way off base here but do you hope that preserving space for something like gods is a way of holding out hope for an explanation of existence? I have a hard time believing you would find that any more satisfying as an explanation than I would. This is what most atheists would refer to as the "goddidit" explanation.

To my way of thinking, sorting the origins of things into the doings of various supernatural beings does not count as providing an explanation. Analyzing how any 'supernatural' being does what it does would count as an explanation. Of course, once we know how its done, it is no longer super natural.

Now at this point I expect you to skewer me for assuming that we have the capacity to understand everything. On what basis do I dare assume such a thing? Actually, I don't assume that. But I do think that we can ever only hope to explain that which we do have the capacity to understand. No understanding, no explanation .. and I think you're the one who must have an explanation, yes?

Well we don't differ on the question of whether humanity has or will ever have the capacity to assess the problem. There may very well not be evidence available to settle every question.

I think where we may differ is in our concept of natural explanation. I have no room for a category of things which by their nature must remain supernatural, gods for example. Even if I do lack the qualities to access every aspect of it, I still believe there is a way that things are, a natural world. I believe the very concept of "explaining" really means showing where a thing fits in the natural world. If any gods exist, I believe, it will be shown they must have a place in the natural world .. even if our concept of the natural world is expanded in the process.

Interesting. I focus more on humanities capabilities and choose not to assume that we can assess all that is (in an absolute sense). It makes sense to attempt to understand the universe/world/existenec as best we can, but why do you think we are in a position to assess what exists , whether it's in material, supernatural etc sense? This is the irony of the atheist position, it's commonly asserted that the burden of proof is on the believer, yet most atheists believe that all that exists is in the natural world. I realise this is only because that which can be proven to exists, does exist. This is circular. This is not the same as denying the way we see the natural world. Some will see this a a god of the gaps, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Yes I do indulge a naive belief in something I'd like to call the natural world which I'm defining as what exists. I also assume that perceptually and cognitively we do apprehend this natural world, though I wouldn't say in any exhaustive way. I wouldn't assume that if we are not equipped to detect it, that it doesn't exist. As a species we may be but one of the blind men grasping onto just one part of the elephant. Yet I think we do know something about the part we grasp.

Now this analogy actually serves you well because you suspect (believe?) that existence is divided into a portion we have access to (my natural world) and another which we don't (the supernatural?). You can now say that we will never understand the elephant so long as we can only know its tail. But even if the unknowable was such a meaningful category, what difference could suspecting it make in divining the shape of the entire elephant? I guess what I'm asking is, could your correct belief in this matter possibly enable you to transcend our natural world? And if not, what does it matter?

[Napoléon]

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? 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.

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. "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?

Frankly I don't give two shits what you think. It doesn't much bother me what anyone else thinks on this forum. But when someone else on here calls me disingenuous when I'm not being disingenuous, you better know damn well I'm going to have something to say about it.

Well done for stating the obvious btw. Your point is fucking what. If anyone needs to state their case it is you. I've said clearly in my last few posts on this thread, what my points are. You seem to just be telling me mine, and telling me you disagree. So fucking what. Make a case if you think I'm being disingenuous, don't just rudely assert it.


The start of your second paragraph is a straw man.

As for 'assuming'; I don't assume shit. This is the point you seem to miss. The whole point about testing and verifying things is that you don't assume, you prove.

Jesus christ a toddler can understand this concept.

[Selliedjoup]

Pathetic dodge there, junior...

You write so many words yet say nothing.

[Faith No More]

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.

No, I care not whether you see my position as belief based(it may very well be). I view you as self-righteous, because you dove in here head first, without asking anyone as to what they actually believe, and then proceeded to claim that everyone else's postion is irrational without even knowing what that position is.

It matters not, however, because until you have anything worthwhile to say, this is my last response to you.

[Selliedjoup]

---

I don't believe I'm ever going to win the lottery, but I could. Now if you tell me I am going to definitely win the lottery, me not believing it doesn't mean it won't happen, it just makes it unlikely because things like that generally don't happen. I tend not to believe in unlikely things, however, it doesn't stop me wondering. I can still hold the position of not believing, while pondering on whether something may or may not be possible. For instance, I can build a range of scenarios in my mind that will explain how I came to win the lottery - Everything from pure coincidence to increased odds from playing more, just in case. It's a fantastical story, but it could actually happen.

In my hypothetical (wishful thinking) scenario, if I were to win the lottery exactly how you foretold, do you know what I would say? "Would you believe it?" Funny turn of phrase that, isn't it? It's especially reserved for events/things that have very little chance of coming to pass or existing. This is the only rational position one can hold when it comes to Gods. If I were to win the lottery I could easily present the evidence of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with the part where you told me that I would win it, either - some would assign it to superstition, while others would accept it as a remarkable coincidence etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is, you can't pigeon hole non/belief into neat little packages. Like, for instance, I don't believe that my kids will tidy their rooms when I tell them to. When they surprise me and actually listen to a damn word I say, I don't start proclaiming miracles - sarcasm aside, of course.

I actually don't know who I'm typing this to, I just wanted to waffle a bit.

How do you know or assess the likelyhood of a god(s)? You seem to have assumed it possesses the same odds as winning the lottery. Why?

I never assumed anything. The point of my post was summed up in the last paragraph; where I pointed out that there are distinct differences between levels of disbelief. I put more stock in me winning the lottery because I have observed people winning the lottery, and have even won it myself on a smaller scale (Scratchcards). I put more stock in my kids surprising me and cleaning their room because sometimes kids do that. I consider the possibility of God(s), eliminate what they are likely not, then assign them to what they possibly are - either outside of natural laws as we know them; or, they don't exist at all.

---

In all three cases the level of disbelief I hold is based on what I can observe. As far as we know, as of today, God has never been observed. All we have to go by is ancient claims, which we have no way of verifying. When God makes an appearance, my level of belief will increase - after we eliminate optical illusion/trickery as an explanation, of course.

Fair enough. It seems that you're well on your way to materialism.

---

---

Calm down, why would you care what I think? 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.

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. "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?

Frankly I don't give two shits what you think. It doesn't much bother me what anyone else thinks on this forum. But when someone else on here calls me disingenuous when I'm not being disingenuous, you better know damn well I'm going to have something to say about it.

Well done for stating the obvious btw. Your point is fucking what. If anyone needs to state their case it is you. I've said clearly in my last few posts on this thread, what my points are. You seem to just be telling me mine, and telling me you disagree. So fucking what. Make a case if you think I'm being disingenuous, don't just rudely assert it.

---

The start of your second paragraph is a straw man.

As for 'assuming'; I don't assume shit. This is the point you seem to miss. The whole point about testing and verifying things is that you don't assume, you prove.

Jesus christ a toddler can understand this concept.

Obviously you still don't get it, or are choosing not to. I'll give up.

---

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.

No, I care not whether you see my position as belief based(it may very well be). I view you as self-righteous, because you dove in here head first, without asking anyone as to what they actually believe, and then proceeded to claim that everyone else's postion is irrational without even knowing what that position is.

It matters not, however, because until you have anything worthwhile to say, this is my last response to you.

That's your call. You seem to imply that all atheists hold vastly different views, where they all make the same basic assumption of materialism. It all stems from here, diverges on some trivial points, but ends with the same conclusion.

I'm not remotely surprised by any of the responses I've received.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Pathetic dodge there, junior...

You write so many words yet say nothing.

Yet another sad attempt at a dodge. You FAIL.

---

Obviously you still don't get it, or are choosing not to. I'll give up.

Glad to hear it. don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

---

You're not even reading what I'm writing.

First, I'm not saying that evidentialism is wrong, or that it's a bad theory of justification. I'm just asking how you guys know it's true.

Shotgun's sitting in the corner. You can see for yourself whether or not our confidence is the efficacy of evidence is misplaced.

Second, all you did was look at a particular non-evidentialist system and showed that it was stupid. Your system seemed to be, "Every proposition should be believed." Are you saying that this is the only alternative to evidentialism?

No one here has claimed to be "an evidentialist". Put your fucking straw man away.

Third, how do you know that evidentialism has worked? You believe it that it's worked, but how can you prove it (without simply assuming that it works)?

We have confidence in the efficacy of evidence because it is a tried-and-true method. Unlike your superstitions, which have an abysmal accuracy record.

This isn't facetious. I'd actually like to see the proof.

Shotgun's in the corner. It's loaded up and the safety is off. knock yourself out.

---

Fair enough. It seems that you're well on your way to materialism.

You fucking armchair philoshoper-wanna-be's and your strawman diagnoses of people's "beliefs" they don't claim make me want to hurl.

If someone doesn't outright claim "I am an x-ist", your label is outright strawmanning.

[TaraLeeCheesman]

The I AM thing, aka the dead realm and what I call satan suppresses all information about "god" (quasi-crystals and the two people who produce it).

Tara
IwasJesus