Atheist or really Agnostic

[Cyberman]

Mars, Milky Way, Galaxy....I see a pattern - God is trying to communicate to us through chocolate. He's trying to tell us of the enormity of space.

I can make 'em vanish into a black hole.

Then reappear from a brown one.

Hey, maybe I'm God?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation.

I am certain it has already been stated, but just in case you have decided to further argue your illogical point I will reiterate:

If there is already no evidence to support the existence of something, it is reasonable to assume that it does not exist. Therefore, it would be further unreasonable to attempt to prove that it does not exist since there is already no proof of its existence.

Stating that atheists must prove that god does not exist is shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the positive claim, which would be that god does exist, and therefore the burden of proof belongs to the theists who claim that god does exists when there is no evidence to support his existence.

It is simple logic. Those that claim an absolute negation of something have a burden of proof.

Those that claim the existence of something also have a burden of proof.

So I have not shifted the burden of proof to either side. I am just showing that both sides have a burden of proof.

Here is an example from mathematics.

Euler proposed that there were no trivial whole number solutions to the following equation.

a^4 + b^4 + c^4 = d^4

(I used the ^ to indicate raised to the power.)

Euler's assertion is an absolute negation. But he did not have a proof to show what he claimed.

In 1987, someone used a computer and found a solution.

95,800^4 + 217,519^4 + 414,560^4 = 422,481^4

That counter example proved the absolute negation false.

---

It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation.

I am certain it has already been stated, but just in case you have decided to further argue your illogical point I will reiterate:

If there is already no evidence to support the existence of something, it is reasonable to assume that it does not exist. Therefore, it would be further unreasonable to attempt to prove that it does not exist since there is already no proof of its existence.

Stating that atheists must prove that god does not exist is shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the positive claim, which would be that god does exist, and therefore the burden of proof belongs to the theists who claim that god does exists when there is no evidence to support his existence.

---

I believe the Holy Bible is true.
It claims to be from God Almighty.
It proves itself in many ways.

That would be circular logic and in no way proof of god's existence. Stating that the bible is proof of god's existence is akin to stating that a marvel comic book is proof of Spider-Man's existence.

---

The Holy Bible is a record of historical events.

False, there is nothing remotely historically accurate in the bible.

Except you have not yet seen the proof.
That is another topic.

[Foxaèr]

It is simple logic. Those that claim an absolute negation of something have a burden of proof.

False.

Here is an example from mathematics.

Comparing the logic of mathematics to the logic of philosophy/religion is akin to comparing apples to oranges. It does not work.

Except you have not yet seen the proof.

I could delude myself into thinking there was proof, but that would be irrational. I prefer to live in reality rather than the comfortable fantasy world into which you have placed yourself along with other theists.

---

In Revelation 12, Satan

Satan is no more real than god. Satan was invented for two express purposes. One of which was to scare people into believing in god. The second of which was to act as a scapegoat for man who could not accept personal responsibility for his wrongdoings.

[NoraBrimstone]

Some nonsense or other.

How do you find the time to worship thousands of Gods?

[popeyespappy]

Except you have not yet seen the proof.
That is another topic.

Forgive me if I remain skeptical of your claims of proof. Many others before you have claimed they could provide proof yet none have been able to provide said proof.

[pocaracas]

Oh... goodie!!! A new chew toy!
And this one has poe®™ written all over!

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God.

You'll never win!
The first sentence, man... the very first sentence?!?!
It's wrong, look here:

atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

Dictionaries help with definitions of words, you know?

But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation.

It is... that's why we don't usually do it...

Even if you could look throughout the entire universe, which you cannot, and found no God, that still would not prove that God does not exist. It would at best prove that God could not be seen.

Or was "out" of the Universe itself!
Anything goes for a god, right?

Because of this, it is impossible to absolutely claim that there is no God.

No shit, Sherlock?!
Did you know that it is also impossible to absolutely claim that there is no:
- Fairy
- Leprechaun
- Mermaid
- Unicorn
- Pegasus
- Dragon
- Santa Claus
- Easter bunny


And yet, we don't attach an a- and an -ist to these words because it is common knowledge that these entities are fictional.
I can't fathom why that memo never reached the god myth...

A person could be fairly convinced of their position, but they could not prove it.

Such is the burden of those who actively believe that Santa exists...

In essence they would logically have to be an agnostic, with a personal belief that to the best of their knowledge, there is no God. But then logically they are agnostic. They really do not know.

Aye... I really do not know if there is a Santa Claus... maybe... but I do know who buys my kids' presents... And it's no fat guy in a red suit.

Since logically they are agnostic, they must allow for the possibility that God may exist, if they are to be true to a logical position.

But I know, first hand, that if I don't buy presents for my kids, Santa will not make bring them. I tried that.... should I try again, until Santa delivers? Should I make my kids go through that A/S/K ordeal?

They certainly can keep their personal belief of no God, unless they could be shown that God does exist. But an honest agnostic must allow for the possibility that God exists.

Aye.... I allow the possibility of Santa... but I operate under the assumption he doesn't exist. That's why I buy my kids' presents.
Do you go with Santa? How often have your kids been left presentless, because of that?

Those that claim that they will always be an atheist, may be showing that it is not logical to absolutely claim that there is no God, but a bias to not even consider the evidence.

There is no photo of the sleigh.
There is no photo of the fat bearded guy in a red suit... well, at least not of the true one... many posers, there are.
Apart from movies, cartoons, books, etc... there is no documented account of a Santa visit.
Until then, if you believe Santa exists, then you leave your kids waiting for him to deliver christmas presents. I will continue to take care of those presents myself and keep them a bit happy on christmas morning.

[Beta Ray Bill]

Ignorance can sound so stupid, can't it?

This guy is just spewing out faith garbage. He has obviously done no research nor does he provide any evidence to back himself up.

Maybe we should show him some of our evidence? Oh, wait, theists won't read anything written against their fath, nor will they believe any scripture we quote is wrong.

I say just ignore him.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

---

Oh... goodie!!! A new chew toy!
And this one has poe®™ written all over!

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God.

You'll never win!
The first sentence, man... the very first sentence?!?!
It's wrong, look here:

atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

Dictionaries help with definitions of words, you know?

But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation.

It is... that's why we don't usually do it...

Even if you could look throughout the entire universe, which you cannot, and found no God, that still would not prove that God does not exist. It would at best prove that God could not be seen.

Or was "out" of the Universe itself!
Anything goes for a god, right?

Because of this, it is impossible to absolutely claim that there is no God.

No shit, Sherlock?!
Did you know that it is also impossible to absolutely claim that there is no:
- Fairy
- Leprechaun
- Mermaid
- Unicorn
- Pegasus
- Dragon
- Santa Claus
- Easter bunny


And yet, we don't attach an a- and an -ist to these words because it is common knowledge that these entities are fictional.
I can't fathom why that memo never reached the god myth...

A person could be fairly convinced of their position, but they could not prove it.

Such is the burden of those who actively believe that Santa exists...

In essence they would logically have to be an agnostic, with a personal belief that to the best of their knowledge, there is no God. But then logically they are agnostic. They really do not know.

Aye... I really do not know if there is a Santa Claus... maybe... but I do know who buys my kids' presents... And it's no fat guy in a red suit.

Since logically they are agnostic, they must allow for the possibility that God may exist, if they are to be true to a logical position.

But I know, first hand, that if I don't buy presents for my kids, Santa will not make bring them. I tried that.... should I try again, until Santa delivers? Should I make my kids go through that A/S/K ordeal?

They certainly can keep their personal belief of no God, unless they could be shown that God does exist. But an honest agnostic must allow for the possibility that God exists.

Aye.... I allow the possibility of Santa... but I operate under the assumption he doesn't exist. That's why I buy my kids' presents.
Do you go with Santa? How often have your kids been left presentless, because of that?

Those that claim that they will always be an atheist, may be showing that it is not logical to absolutely claim that there is no God, but a bias to not even consider the evidence.

There is no photo of the sleigh.
There is no photo of the fat bearded guy in a red suit... well, at least not of the true one... many posers, there are.
Apart from movies, cartoons, books, etc... there is no documented account of a Santa visit.
Until then, if you believe Santa exists, then you leave your kids waiting for him to deliver christmas presents. I will continue to take care of those presents myself and keep them a bit happy on christmas morning.

---

I do not believe in Santa.

[NoraBrimstone]

I do not believe in Santa.

Oh no, because that would be ridiculous compared to an invisible sky daddy and his zombie son.

[Rahul]

Why is this yet another newbie theist this week claiming atheists have a burden of proof? Did Ray Comfort put out a new video or something?