Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'

[Ace Otana]

All I'm asking is for you to prove your lack of evidence theory.

I see no evidence. I hear no evidence. I taste no evidence. I smell no evidence. I feel no evidence.

Until I find some evidence, why would I place my belief in something?
There might be evidence, but until we find it we have no reason to believe in God. None.

Do you believe in love?

Love is a concept.
It's not based on belief.

[Psalm 23]

You believe in a something without evidence = delusion

And so do you.

I refuse to believe in this being as there is 0 evidence = safe stance

You believe there is no God, but you don't have solid evidence to back up this claim. Instead you use "lack of evidence" theory, which as I have stated in previous threads, that arguement is flawed to the core. Isn't this becoming a contradiction?

I haven't read his book. I will agree with him however that religious beliefs are pretty delusional (in regards to God). I doubt Mr Dawkins is incinuating that the people who are atheist are logical and the people who are religious are illogical. He's just talkign about the specific belief being garbage (I assume).

He's assuming all religious people are nuts. He mentions the Christian Crusades and modern day al-Quida. He has to dig back 1,300 years in history to pin-point events on Christians.

They have one delusional belief. One. They don't realise it is delusional, they are probably logical human beings who think they are being logical and would probably trash the idea when presented with evidence and ideas.

I highly doubt a Christian doctor would denounce his faith so easily. Remember, these are the men who are responsible for science and medicine.

When we say "religious people are delusional", we only mean "delusional in regards to their belief in the supernatural". We aren't making any implications about the rest of their lives.

So, do you have solid 100% evidence that supernatural events that are taking place in the modern world are just images of a delusional mind?

For example, the blood running down the Virgin Mary's cheek on a cement statue? You don't believe these events are supernatural? What about the Virgin Mother who appeared before a crowd of 75,000 witnesses in 1914? Do you believe every single person witnessed a delusion of the mind all at once?

http://www.medjugorje-online.com/apparitions/fatima.php

[Ace Otana]

You believe there is no God, but you don't have solid evidence to back up this claim.

Sorry I had to step in there.

YOUR making the claim! Not us!

We simple don't believe you. Your making the claim and so the burdon of proof is on you.

Are you expected to dis-prove the flying spaghetti monster?

It's not down to atheists to dis-prove everything. It is plain and simple, dis-belief. Reasons can be - lack of evidence which is valid.

So, your making the claim, you prove it.

[Edwardo Piet]

First off, I've said it once, and I will say it as many times as it needs repeating.

The only way anyone can use the, "Lack of Evidence" arguement is unless every option has been explored and examined.

And you know it, and so do I, That is an impossible task to complete.

The lack of evidence arguement has been declined until someone can prove God does not exist in the entire Universe, or beyond. Until the day scientists can say, "Ok, here's the entire Universe, Look, No God." Then you have an arguement.

You made the statement, not me.

All I'm asking is for you to prove your lack of evidence theory.

I'm assuming you have obtained complete knowledge and information about the entire Universe and Beyond?

As i have said. Thats not how evidence works. You aren't expected to know everything. If I DID know everything I would claim that I KNOW that God doesn't exist but I don't. I merely say that so far there is no evidence and I believe he almost certainly doesn't exist. And that he isn't disproved absolutely but he is (by default, because there's no evidence of anything to disprove) de facto scientifically because there is ZERO evidence of him.
You appear to misunderstand how evidence works. And you misunderstand the burden of proof. The whole point is that the burden of proof is on you. Not that "I know there is no God because I have tested everything including the intangible" !! I never said any such thing.
You misunderstand how evidence works and you misunderstand the burden of proof.
And finally. No I did not make the statement. I claimed nothing. And there's nothing to claim. I merely said "No evidence. You are the one making the claims so the burden of proof is on you not me. Its on the believer not the unbeliever".

[LukeMC]

You believe in a something without evidence = delusion

And so do you.

I refuse to believe in this being as there is 0 evidence = safe stance

You believe there is no God, but you don't have solid evidence to back up this claim. Instead you use "lack of evidence" theory, which as I have stated in previous threads, that arguement is flawed to the core. Isn't this becoming a contradiction?

Sigh. If lack of belief is a belief then bald is a hair colour.
But I'll play along.
What is the evidence for NO UNICORNS?
Is it equally logical to believe in unicorns without evidence as it is to disbelieve in them because of the lack of evidence?

[Edwardo Piet]

Very good point.

[Psalm 23]

Sigh. If lack of belief is a belief then bald is a hair colour.
But I'll play along.
What is the evidence for NO UNICORNS?
Is it equally logical to believe in unicorns without evidence as it is to disbelieve in them because of the lack of evidence?

I found a Unicorn. So now you MUST believe! Lack of evidence is a very, very weak arguement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25097986/fro...&GT1=43001

If I drop a pin in a 2,000 acre field, and you only search 500 acres of that field, how can you say Lack of evidence proves that pin is not in that field?

Can't you see how ridiculous a non-belief can be?

Do you think the F.B.I and the C.I.A only investigate 1/2 of the crime scene and then they say, "lack of evidence?" No, it doesn't work like that. lol. However, this is the theory atheists like to cling on to.

[LukeMC]

Sigh. If lack of belief is a belief then bald is a hair colour.
But I'll play along.
What is the evidence for NO UNICORNS?
Is it equally logical to believe in unicorns without evidence as it is to disbelieve in them because of the lack of evidence?

I found a Unicorn. So now you MUST believe! Lack of evidence is a very, very weak arguement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25097986/fro...&GT1=43001

If I drop a pin in a 2,000 acre field, and you only search 500 acres of that field, how can you say Lack of evidence proves that pin is not in that field?

Can't you see how ridiculous a non-belief can be?

Do you think the F.B.I and the C.I.A only investigate 1/2 of the crime scene and then they say, "lack of evidence?" No, it doesn't work like that. lol. However, this is the theory atheists like to cling on to.

Touché
EDIT: woops, think I got the wrong word Tis pronounced "too-shay" and roughly means "I have no argument against that. Well done"

[Ace Otana]

Sigh. If lack of belief is a belief then bald is a hair colour.
But I'll play along.
What is the evidence for NO UNICORNS?
Is it equally logical to believe in unicorns without evidence as it is to disbelieve in them because of the lack of evidence?

I found a Unicorn. So now you MUST believe! Lack of evidence is a very, very weak arguement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25097986/fro...&GT1=43001

If I drop a pin in a 2,000 acre field, and you only search 500 acres of that field, how can you say Lack of evidence proves that pin is not in that field?

Can't you see how ridiculous a non-belief can be?

Do you think the F.B.I and the C.I.A only investigate 1/2 of the crime scene and then they say, "lack of evidence?" No, it doesn't work like that. lol. However, this is the theory atheists like to cling on to.

You simply do not understand what evidence means do you?
I should just give up.

Lack of evidence doesn't dis-prove anything. It just simply states that nothing detectable has been found to support the claim. Nothing detectable, study-able/researchable. It has nothing to do with dis-proval.

You've made a claim and have nothing to support the claim. Understand now?

In my view, I see this "you have no evidence to prove there is no god" as evading. You know you cannot provide evidence and so you break the rules and turn it around. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not ours. Your claim, you prove it.

[LukeMC]

You simply do not understand what evidence means do you?
I should just give up.

Lack of evidence doesn't dis-prove anything. It just simply states that nothing detectable has been found to support the claim. Nothing detectable, study-able/researchable. It has nothing to do with dis-proval.

You've made a claim and have nothing to support the claim. Understand now?

That's what I meant to say!