Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Way to miss the point and shift the burden of proof again.

So, before you launch into another lie-rade, do you think "aha! Gotcha! There is NO evidence anyone can present to support this claim!" Is a compelling argument?

You say repeatedly that your faith "is rational" then refuse to elaborate further. Why is your specific entity, not just "the supernatural" completely immune from necessary evidence, unlike any reasonable belief?

Do you then believe every reported encounter with ghosts, imps, Djinn, Leprechauns, Unicorns, Fairies, and other supernatural entities? If not, why not?

You said yourself the supernatural doesn't need transferable evidence to be believable.

Is this a joke?

So do you admit defeat that you cannot actually prove the non existence of something supernatural?

So, you claim your deity cannot have transferable evidence (a characteristic of completely imaginary entities), and then want me to disprove it's existence without you first defining what you are asking me to disprove. You claim to have rational evidence for said entity, but are unable to provide anything, again, because it's conveniently "non-transferable." Not unlike someone who believes in leprechauns, which you reject as "something you never said," so I'll ask you again:

Do you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, or fairies? Why or why not?

I don't know what you believe in, you haven't outlined what you believe in, and yet you want me to provide you evidence of its absence. For all I know, your God could be a giant leprechaun, who goes by another name. Perhaps you could lay out some characteristics.

Thanks. That's great.

I never have refused to explain how my faith is rational. Let's see you run away now for the THIRD time of asking what you want to address.

Repost or link this explanation. I have yet to see it.

You repeat these meaningless tirades against some imaginary opponent whilst avoiding any direct confrontation.

How skeptical of you.

How can anyone "confront" an opponent who won't respond to the content of a post?

Google the meaning of the term "skeptical," I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Ryantology]

What evidence Ryan?

The rate of supernatural claims that have positively correlated to reality remains at 0%.

If you have examples to the contrary, you can shut me up nice and easy.

[fr0d0]

So, you claim your deity cannot have transferable evidence (a characteristic of completely imaginary entities), and then want me to disprove it's existence without you first defining what you are asking me to disprove. You claim to have rational evidence for said entity, but are unable to provide anything, again, because it's conveniently "non-transferable." Not unlike someone who believes in leprechauns, which you reject as "something you never said," so I'll ask you again:

I never said that I want you to disprove it's existence. Once again with the imagination.

I can provide plenty evidence. Are you sure you can resist being a complete jerk and not demand natural evidence of the supernatural?

I'm not superstitious at all. Reason rules my beliefs. If you're easily convinced by fairy stories, then that's great. I use reason to discern those things. You should try it.

I don't know what you believe in, you haven't outlined what you believe in, and yet you want me to provide you evidence of its absence. For all I know, your God could be a giant leprechaun, who goes by another name. Perhaps you could lay out some characteristics.

Quite. You're completely ignorant yet here you are slagging off something that you know bugger all about. The standard of your scepticism is severely lacking.

Repost or link this explanation. I have yet to see it.

It's a bit fucking late don't you think?

How can anyone "confront" an opponent who won't respond to the content of a post?

Google the meaning of the term "skeptical," I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Thanks. Now I've seen everything.

The person who singularly fails to address anyone. Who has such a clichéd view and never ever bothers to make a point relevant to the conversation... accuses others of not responding.

Wow

---

What evidence Ryan?

The rate of supernatural claims that have positively correlated to reality remains at 0%.

If you have examples to the contrary, you can shut me up nice and easy.

Haha !

You just can't stop yourself being a complete dick can you?

[Jiggerj]

I believe there's no such thing as a "Perfect Being". After that all bets are off.

[Coffee Jesus]

What you say it true for your example. My point is that saying something is wrong, false, or otherwise mistaken shifts the burden of proof. An atheists go beyond simple disbelief once they assert that their denial is the correct position.

But yes. Burden of proof arguments are trivial like you say. At the same time I think its disingenuous for some to rail against believers and hiding behind a facade of indifference. If they were simply nonbelievers then the appropriate position is agnosticism.

It really isn't as black and white as: atheist, theist, or agnostic.

The scientific method requires that a claim be falsifiable. On its face, this seems to require that some possible observation could flat-out contradict the hypothesis, but this is not so. Scientists use probabilistic reasoning all the time. It's called statistical hypothesis testing. In probabilistic frameworks, people can accept or reject claims to an extent without being 100% certain.

But there is even more to think about. If a machine is programmed to generate a claim at random, what is the probability that the random claim will be true? It's agreed that some metric is needed here, whether that metric be the claim's extraordinariness, how much the claim assumes, etc.
A claim that is without backing usually doesn't have a 50/50 probability of being true. Claims generally begin with a greater probability of being false, even before we investigate. Does that mean we should say claims are false even before they've been investigated? Of course not. For practical reasons, we reserve judgement until the claim has been investigated, and has been found wanting.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What you say it true for your example. My point is that saying something is wrong, false, or otherwise mistaken shifts the burden of proof. An atheists go beyond simple disbelief once they assert that their denial is the correct position.

But yes. Burden of proof arguments are trivial like you say. At the same time I think its disingenuous for some to rail against believers and hiding behind a facade of indifference. If they were simply nonbelievers then the appropriate position is agnosticism.

It really isn't as black and white as: atheist, theist, or agnostic.

The scientific method requires that a claim be falsifiable. On its face, this seems to require that some possible observation could flat-out contradict the hypothesis, but this is not so. Scientists use probabilistic reasoning all the time. It's called statistical hypothesis testing. In probabilistic frameworks, people can accept or reject claims to an extent without being 100% certain.

But there is even more to think about. If a machine is programmed to generate a claim at random, what is the probability that the random claim will be true? It's agreed that some metric is needed here, whether that metric be the claim's extraordinariness, how much the claim assumes, etc.
A claim that is without backing usually doesn't have a 50/50 probability of being true. Claims generally begin with a greater probability of being false, even before we investigate. Does that mean we should say claims are false even before they've been investigated? Of course not. For practical reasons, we reserve judgement until the claim has been investigated, and has been found wanting.

Are you suggesting that all forms of knowledge fall within the purview of natural science? Are you aware that the philosopher of science that promoted the criteria of falsifiability, Popper, only claimed to be agnostic.

[Coffee Jesus]

Are you suggesting that all forms of knowledge fall within the purview of natural science?

So you plan to prove your god's existence without making any references to empirically observable reality?

Or are you here to say you have witnessed proof that we cannot see for ourselves?

Are you aware that the philosopher of science that promoted the criteria of falsifiability, Popper, believed in God?

Okay... Nothing I said above entails disbelief in God. It just explains how someone can be an atheist about a claim they haven't yet refuted.

But is it really true? Karl Popper, a theist?

Wikipedia - Karl Popper
"In an interview that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it shall be kept secret until after his death, he summarized his position on God as follows: 'I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticism—to admit that we don't know and to search—is all right.'"

[Ryantology]

Haha !

You just can't stop yourself being a complete dick can you?

I just can't really think of a nice way of saying that watching you try to present an argument is closely analogous to watching an endlessly-looping video of a horse defecating.

---

Are you suggesting that all forms of knowledge fall within the purview of natural science? Are you aware that the philosopher of science that promoted the criteria of falsifiability, Popper, only claimed to be agnostic.

No form of knowledge you can't actually share with anybody else has no objective value or purpose.

[Bob Kelso]

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?
Me: Because there is no proof that your god exists.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Really tired of this worn-out line;

Me: I can shoot lasers out of my cock.

You: Show me.

Me: Hey now, I don't have to prove that. You should just have faith.

You: I don't believe you.

Me: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

---

What evidence do you have in mind?

Any.

Plenty room. Am I not allowed to talk about it then?

If you think you've got the room then go for it.

[smax]

Why? Well, isn't it obvious? The devil has possessed me and steered me away from the powerful and wonderful holy truths Jehovah God.

In fact, I'm wondering how I am even aware of this Lucifer induced treachery. You'd think I would remain constantly oblivious to the Devils schemes and devices, being that I'm obviously under his evil spell.