Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Brian37]

"Ooh, that smell..."

Hey, it is a Lamborghini.

[Bad Writer]

"Ooh, that smell..."

Hey, it is a Lamborghini.

It may be yours, but you will never see it. You believe me, of course.

[Brian37]

Hey, it is a Lamborghini.

It may be yours, but you will never see it. You believe me, of course.

Absolutely, I also believe in unicorns and puppies made of chocolate and love everything that sparkles. No one can fall for a lie if they really want it to be true, that never happens.

[Doubting Thomas]

It's only irrational if you don't believe.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Exactly. Once in an internet chat room someone came in purporting to be a young female TV/movie star. Needless to say I was pretty skeptical, as were most people in the chat room. Could it have been her? Possibly. Should I have believed it just because that person said so? I wasn't born yesterday. Could I prove it one way or another? No.

But according to Vinny's logic my skepticism was irrational because I couldn't prove that she wasn't who she said she was. According to Vinny, it's only logical to be totally naive and believe everything and skepticism is illogical.

So why doesn't Vinny believe in every other god out there that has ever been worshiped throughout history? He can't prove that they don't or never existed, so his disbelief is totally irrational according to his own flawed logic.

D'oh. Way to completely misunderstand everything that was being said.

Using your own example, the atheist position would look like "Well, I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore you're not a movie star."

Everyone in the chat room would call that atheist an idiot. A total lack of evidence is not a total lack of a movie star. There's nothing stopping Summer Glau (whatever happened to her?) from logging into a chat room (although would you really want to?) and declining every sleazebag's attempt at proving who she was.

The sensible position is really agnosticism.

[Mister Agenda]

D'oh. Way to completely misunderstand everything that was being said.

Using your own example, the atheist position would look like "Well, I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore you're not a movie star."

Actually, it would be more like 'I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore I don't believe you're a movie star."

[Something completely different]

Using your own example, the atheist position would look like "Well, I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore you're not a movie star."

No.

Every atheist is an individual and came to atheism through his own thought process. There is no baptism or dogma as in religion which would require somekind of idiotic process of thought from every atheist to be able to call themselves atheist.

A concept that a fascist scumbag like you probably wont understand.

Everyone in the chat room would call that atheist an idiot. A total lack of evidence is not a total lack of a movie star. There's nothing stopping Summer Glau (whatever happened to her?) from logging into a chat room (although would you really want to?) and declining every sleazebag's attempt at proving who she was.

You have not appologised to summerqueen for your utterly disgusting behavior towards her. And you probably never will.
And making some weirdish childish comment that mentions her will not change the fact that you are a mysogenist scumbag fucktard.

The sensible position is really agnosticism.

What is it like being a mysogenist who enjoys insulting women and to use that word?

Now fuck off!

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So what qualifies as showing "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?

Beats me...
Maybe something along the lines of:
If such an powerful entity exists, which can contact people directly, and can embody people, then I see no difficulty in contacting everyone directly.
That way, everyone will have a similar experience which cannot be dismissed as an abnormal psychological event on an individual, because everyone will have experienced roughly the same!
If it's soooo important for said entity that we humans accept that it exists, then I see no reason why it should cower from such a simple feat.... as it seems to be doing now (if it exists)

So if a powerful entity exists, they should contact people directly, that's what you're saying? And this is what a reasonable atheist believes?

I hope you have some really good reasoning to explain why entities have to contact people in order for it to be true that they exist.

I guess you'll only believe Barack Obama is the American president once he rings you up? That's kinda stupid.

Do you expect this same high standard of proof for all your beliefs, or only for the one you wish was not true?

Oh, how I wish magic was real!!...
Sadly, it does not seem to be.
All my beliefs are based on some level of probabilities, based on previous experience (sometimes, compounded with other people's experiences).
And gods... warrant... a very low probability of existence outside people's imaginations.

How precise are your assigned probabilities values? What equation are you using?

Or, are you just pulling it out of your ass? You can be honest, Mr. Skeptic.

This is like asking "Give me proof that science works." Whether or not it works, the question is so broad, and can be answered with so many different answers, that we are spoilt for choice. I can pick something appropriate for your level of education. Are you in university? What kind of an education background do you have?

LOL, troll.
Assume I'm a 6 year old kid. Explain it like if my a very stupid blonde.

I once had a test that was something like "explain conservation of momentum as if you were talking to a 6 year old". (most difficult test evar!)

I'll give you a chance to think carefully about your claims here. Read it again, slowly and carefully and tell me if you are 100% confident in your own reasoning, and believe it is irrefutable.

Once you are convinced it is, let me know and I will respond.

I'll give you a chance to think about your lack of ability to refute anything I write, while you try to make me feel like you know something I don't, but never quite elaborate it...

Sounds like rage.

But since you want an explanation of why your reasoning is a failure, I'll take two of your own statements and ask you to demonstrate how one leads to the other.

"Now, I look around me...
gravity works in a predictable manner"

and

"Muslim - Like judaism, but with a human representative who claimed to have direct contact with the father god."

First of all, it's "Islam" not "Muslim". But why don't you explain how our knowledge of how gravity works disproves a claim, that for example, Islam doesn't "fit the bill".

Does it show that?

---

D'oh. Way to completely misunderstand everything that was being said.

Using your own example, the atheist position would look like "Well, I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore you're not a movie star."

Actually, it would be more like 'I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore I don't believe you're a movie star."

Who cares what you believe?

What really matters is whether or not movie stars exist. And whether movie stars can log into chatrooms.

Reasonable people say both are unlikely. But at least they are possible.

[Doubting Thomas]

Using your own example, the atheist position would look like "Well, I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore you're not a movie star."

No, you're totally misrepresenting what atheism is about. The atheist position would be "I don't see enough proof you're a movie star, so I don't believe that you are who you say you are."

You keep falling into this illogical conclusion that an atheist is only an atheist if they claim that no gods can or ever will exist. If you can't understand that atheism is only being without belief in a god, then you're either being willfully ignorant, unable to understand basic concepts, or just being stubborn on purpose.

---

Who cares what you believe?

OK, so I vote for willful ignorance mixed with being stubborn on purpose. As such, since you're not willing to learn what atheism really is, there's no more reason to talk to you.

[pocaracas]

Beats me...
Maybe something along the lines of:
If such an powerful entity exists, which can contact people directly, and can embody people, then I see no difficulty in contacting everyone directly.
That way, everyone will have a similar experience which cannot be dismissed as an abnormal psychological event on an individual, because everyone will have experienced roughly the same!
If it's soooo important for said entity that we humans accept that it exists, then I see no reason why it should cower from such a simple feat.... as it seems to be doing now (if it exists)

So if a powerful entity exists, they should contact people directly, that's what you're saying? And this is what a reasonable atheist believes?

I hope you have some really good reasoning to explain why entities have to contact people in order for it to be true that they exist.

I guess you'll only believe Barack Obama is the American president once he rings you up? That's kinda stupid.

The people who claim that entity exists, also claim it wants me to acknowledge that it exists. They want me to believe that it exists.
That Obama exists is trivial, since he's a human being.
God, on the other hand, if it really exists and wants me to acknowledge that it does in fact exists, then it should stop hiding...
just sayin'...

If, on the other hand there is a god and it couldn't care less, then... why should I care?

Oh, how I wish magic was real!!...
Sadly, it does not seem to be.
All my beliefs are based on some level of probabilities, based on previous experience (sometimes, compounded with other people's experiences).
And gods... warrant... a very low probability of existence outside people's imaginations.

How precise are your assigned probabilities values? What equation are you using?

Or, are you just pulling it out of your ass? You can be honest, Mr. Skeptic.

Not at all calculated numerically... just intuitively... so yes, similar to pulling it out of my ass, but with some experience behind it! I use lubricant! Finest brand available.

How likely is it that gravity exists? Pull a number out of your ass! I'd pull something very close to 1.
How likely is it that dragons exist? pull a number out of your ass! I'd pull something very close to 0.
How likely is it that pixies exist? pull a number out of your ass! I'd pull something very close to 0.
How likely is it that life exists on this planet? pulling a number.... errr 1!
How likely is it that you've drunk caffeine today? pulling number.... 0.9!

Whatever the odds, there is always room for all options.
In the meantime, I live my life with according to what my intuitive odds hint at to be above 50%. (I get a sense that this sentence isn't very well written... )

LOL, troll.
Assume I'm a 6 year old kid. Explain it like if my a very stupid blonde.

I once had a test that was something like "explain conservation of momentum as if you were talking to a 6 year old". (most difficult test evar!)


I'll give you a chance to think about your lack of ability to refute anything I write, while you try to make me feel like you know something I don't, but never quite elaborate it...

Sounds like rage.

But since you want an explanation of why your reasoning is a failure, I'll take two of your own statements and ask you to demonstrate how one leads to the other.

"Now, I look around me...
gravity works in a predictable manner"

and

"Muslim - Like judaism, but with a human representative who claimed to have direct contact with the father god."

First of all, it's "Islam" not "Muslim". But why don't you explain how our knowledge of how gravity works disproves a claim, that for example, Islam doesn't "fit the bill".

Does it show that?

You're right, it is Islam... I keep getting those mixed up... Stupid farts can't even get a consistent nomenclature for themselves!

Anyway, my argument involves the whole. Not just one statement, but everything I see around me; everything I sense around me; Every bit of information that I acquire.
From the religions, all I see, all I sense, all the information I get only has people claiming stuff about some entity. I never see the entity itself, there is never a piece of information about that extraordinary entity which matches the rest of reality that I sense... and all those claims seem to carry the aroma of wishful thinking, or fertile imagination, or deception, or... some abnormal psychological state.


Now, You.... you seem to get attached to single statements and miss the whole thing. And then waste pages on stupid little details. Why?
Why is it that your single interest in this forum seems to be to take small parts of other people's statements and confront them with that? Strip everything from context and just make people explain it all... you seem keen on having explained to you all the little inner workings of every mental process...