Proving a negative

[pineapplebunnybounce]

You're not understanding me.

If someone close to me has cancer. Every single claim on earth would be worth checking out, starting with the one with the most evidence. Because a life is on the line. If I own stocks stock tip would be worth checking out cos my money is on the line.

I already said I'm not dismissing the god claim just because of lack of evidence, it also in no way affects anyone.

Yup i proved a negative and got my life back. And yea I wasn't obligated to.

Slim or doesn't at all affect our reality, like i said, haven't given much thought to it. So really have next to nothing to contribute to this speculation.

As for whether or not you think i am obligated. I don't know, I said i wasn't and that i'm not going to. But now you're trying to almost guilt me or something into doing this. Why would you do that if you don't think i'm obligated to? Why don't you explore this if this interests you? Why do we all have to feel like we should take up this challenge as well? Isn't that obligation?

[Minimalist]

Why would I assume anything?

Because people who see invisible anythings are bat shit crazy.

[genkaus]

Ok genkaus, I see your point, but I don't agree with it, here's why.

If you reacted the same way to claims of unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows and the chuppacabra, ufos, bigfoot, yeti, (insert other mythical creatures i can't come up with right this second), then you'd be consistent. You'd also be extremely busy. If you do not react the same way then perhaps you want to ask yourself why does god, having the same amount of evidence as ll the creatures listed so far, warrants your attention more than these creatures?

Meanwhile, there are important things to learn like economics, science, politics, history, music. Not to mention people to hang out with, places to go, food to experience, things to invent, art to do.

Your time is limited. What do you want to spend it on?

The point you are missing is that you should not react the same way to all claims. The only consistency I have on the matter is that I would react to each claim independently of the others. Rather than being formulaic and applying the "burden of proof" thumb-rule indiscriminately to any and all claims, the intellectually responsible thing to do is to consider each claim on its own merits and relevance.

As to why the question of god warrants more attention than all these other supernatural creatures - the answer is simple. It's because no else around me believes in these things. But they not only believe in god, they often live their lives according to his imagined principles and that has a significant impact on my life. Which is why, I would try and disprove their myths whenever I can, even if there is no burden on me to do so.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

ok, so you do believe in treating claims differently. And that some claims are not worth it.

So now what we differ in is only our criteria? Which is you think the god claim is worth it, and I don't. Correct?

What affects people's lives, is not whether or not a god exists, it's whether or not their religion is true. And I do spend time disproving religion, as evidenced by my presence in this forum, and by calling myself and atheist. I would spend time disproving specific gods as well, like the christian and muslim gods.

[genkaus]

You're not understanding me.

If someone close to me has cancer. Every single claim on earth would be worth checking out, starting with the one with the most evidence. Because a life is on the line. If I own stocks stock tip would be worth checking out cos my money is on the line.

I already said I'm not dismissing the god claim just because of lack of evidence, it also in no way affects anyone.

Yup i proved a negative and got my life back. And yea I wasn't obligated to.

Slim or doesn't at all affect our reality, like i said, haven't given much thought to it. So really have next to nothing to contribute to this speculation.

What world are you living in? Here in reality the god-claim has had a most deep and profound effect on all our lives. You said it yourself that you got your life back after proving a negative.

As for whether or not you think i am obligated. I don't know, I said i wasn't and that i'm not going to. But now you're trying to almost guilt me or something into doing this. Why would you do that if you don't think i'm obligated to? Why don't you explore this if this interests you? Why do we all have to feel like we should take up this challenge as well? Isn't that obligation?

I do explore it, since it interests me and I do not consider anyone obligated to do so nor do I expect it of anyone.

However, what I do find most annoying is that whenever anyone raises the question of "disproving god", scores of other atheists rise up in arms crying "but we are not obligated to" - completely missing the point that this isn't question of obligation. Every discussion I've seen on the topic of "proving a negative" has been diverted to a discussion about how the burden of proof doesn't work that way - regardless of it being the original issue.

---

ok, so you do believe in treating claims differently. And that some claims are not worth it.

So now what we differ in is only our criteria? Which is you think the god claim is worth it, and I don't. Correct?

What affects people's lives, is not whether or not a god exists, it's whether or not their religion is true. And I do spend time disproving religion, as evidenced by my presence in this forum, and by calling myself and atheist. I would spend time disproving specific gods as well, like the christian and muslim gods.

Excellent. Carry on, then.

---

The same logic applies to god as well. Just because one doesn't have to is no reason why one shouldn't try to.

Blah, blah, blah, here you go:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-19744.html

Your point?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

However, what I do find most annoying is that whenever anyone raises the question of "disproving god", scores of other atheists rise up in arms crying "but we are not obligated to" - completely missing the point that this isn't question of obligation. Every discussion I've seen on the topic of "proving a negative" has been diverted to a discussion about how the burden of proof doesn't work that way - regardless of it being the original issue.

I have no problem doing that, and it's a valid strategy. Makes them think about how to convince others to disprove their gods or at least take their claims seriously. That's when they realize there's not much going on for their argument.

You can't disprove everyone's god for them, and expect them to stop believing. Most atheists only disproved their own god. God is a personal idea, it continues to warp even as versions of it is disproven by someone else. Only you can disprove your own god, if someone else did it, probably wouldn't take. Evolution disproved creation, history disproved most of the bible. Didn't change a damn thing for those religious people.

Only reason I do it is because it might poke holes in their religions enough for them to question it themselves. But both strategy, IMO, does the same thing, and so are equally effective. Some may argue that the first is better, because the second makes them defensive.

[genkaus]

I have no problem doing that, and it's a valid strategy. Makes them think about how to convince others to disprove their gods or at least take their claims seriously. That's when they realize there's not much going on for their argument.

You can't disprove everyone's god for them, and expect them to stop believing. Most atheists only disproved their own god. God is a personal idea, it continues to warp even as versions of it is disproven by someone else. Only you can disprove your own god, if someone else did it, probably wouldn't take.

Only reason I do it is because it might poke holes in their religions enough for them to question it themselves. But both strategy, IMO, does the same thing, and so are equally effective. Some may argue that the first is better, because the second makes them defensive.

Except, its not always the religious raising the issue. The nature of the question varies from being a sloppy attempt to defend one's faith to being a genuine inquiry into the nature of epistemology and truth. Putting them all in the same category and dismissing them by using the "burden of proof" reply is not the intellectually responsible thing to do.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Considering it's not intellectually responsible to ask someone to disprove something that has no clear definition and without making any attempts to prove it in the first place? Why is one allowed to ask, and the other not allowed to refuse an answer without being called intellectually irresponsible? Because when posed with a question like that everyone knows there's countless and countless of gods imaginary and yet to be imagined. If the person who asks doesn't put in the effort to ask a good question (yes there are such things as bad questions), even if everyone responds with something other than the burden of proof argument, still wouldn't get far.

The question posed in this thread was, what if a theist/deist asks us to prove there is no God. That isn't a good question for a theist to ask, and the motive is, excuse my cynicism, obviously not to get to the truth.

[genkaus]

Considering it's not intellectually responsible to ask someone to disprove something that has no clear definition and without making any attempts to prove it in the first place? Why is one allowed to ask, and the other not allowed to refuse an answer without being called intellectually irresponsible?

Because two wrongs don't make a right. It is intellectually irresponsible to ask an ill-formed question about proving a negative and intellectually irresponsible to dismiss it out of hand. The responsible thing to do would be to have the question clarified and a workable set of constraints established. This would also be how you distinguish between a genuine inquiry and a sloppy defense. Someone making a genuine inquiry would attempt to rectify it into a proper question whereas others would prefer to obfuscate the issue further.

[simplexity]

If I were asked I would say I can't prove there isn't one, but also that it is pointless to assume there is a god, when there is no evidence for one. All it takes to be an atheist is not to assume there is a god. It is that simple. I don't need to think there isn't one. That would be fallacious.