Evidence God Does Not Exist

[Fluké]

I haven't read all the posts, so don't know if someone said this but you're never called to prove a negative. It is poor reasoning.

Sorry, Paul the Human ... I like you and alll .. but I don't think there is (or that this is) proof on the non-existence of God ...

[tavarish]

I haven't read all the posts, so don't know if someone said this but you're never called to prove a negative. It is poor reasoning.

Sorry, Paul the Human ... I like you and alll .. but I don't think there is (or that this is) proof on the non-existence of God ...

He wasn't serious. He was making a tongue in cheek stab at AngelThMan's ridiculous posts.

[AngelThMan]

The majority of people believed the world was flat hundreds of years ago...

The idea that people once believed the world is flat is a myth. All people had to do was stand on a mountain and see the curvature of the earth. Ancient writings demonstrate that people understood that the earth was round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Whenever someone makes an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is very firmly on them...

I know this is standard atheist ideology, but since most of society believes in God, who is really making the extraordinary claim? The theist or the atheist?

Ignoring the Argumentum ad populum for a second, a) there is no such thing as an atheist ideology and b) The majority of the world does not believe in God.

Nearly 4 billion people (3.8 to be exact), believe in the Abrahamic God. The majority of people in the world do believe in God.

At one time, the majority of people did believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It wasn't until Copernicus and Galileo that this theory was challenged. Since the majority believed in an earth-centered theory, it was up to the minority, those like Galileo who supported a sun-centered theory, to prove their extraordinary claim. People weren't just going to take their word for it. They had to prove it!

So no, I don't agree with the atheist tenet that the burden of proof is on the believer. It is the atheist who is making the extraordinary claim, as they are in the minority. The burden of proof is on atheists. It is up to them to prove that what the majority of society believes is false.

[Ace Otana]

The burden of proof is on the claimer. It's got nothing to do with minorities or majorities. If you make a claim, it's down to you to prove it.

Also I can only speak for myself but last time I checked, I made no claim, but you have.

It doesn't matter how many believe in something. A lie is a lie no matter how many believe it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The burden of proof is on the claimer. It's got nothing to do with minorities or majorities. If you make a claim, it's down to you to prove it.

Also I can only speak for myself but last time I checked, I made no claim, but you have.

It doesn't matter how many believe in something. A lie is a lie no matter how many believe it.

Wasting your time mate. It's clear thingie,like many of his ilks has not grasped the principle of the burden of proof.

The argument used on this occasion is a common logical fallacy used by apologists; 'argumentum ad ad populum', or argument by consensus ,the view that if lots of people believe something it must be true.


Also keep an eye out for argument from authority, no true Scotsman,the straw man, tu quoque,and of course the ubiquitous ad hominem attack -----to mention a few

[Ace Otana]

Wasting your time mate. It's clear thingie,like many of his ilks has not grasped the principle of the burden of proof.

The argument used on this occasion is a common logical fallacy used by apologists; 'argumentum ad ad populum', or argument by consensus ,the view that if lots of people believe something it must be true.


Also keep an eye out for argument from authority, no true Scotsman,the straw man, tu quoque,and of course the ubiquitous ad hominem attack -----to mention a few

Eye. Tis was an overly desire to correct him.

The only thing he has convinced me of is that he is a fundie. He won't listen, won't consider the points made and even tires to flip the burden of proof off the claimer and on the non-claimer.

So he knows nothing about the burden of proof, doesn't know much about atheism, thinks if more people believe in something it must be true, thinks we are better/higher than other life forms on this planet, doubts the existance of alien life and thinks god's existance is a higher possibility than other life on other worlds....did I miss anything?


He's insane.

You know, I still have jon paul on my ignore list.

[tavarish]

Nearly 4 billion people (3.8 to be exact), believe in the Abrahamic God. The majority of people in the world do believe in God.

And how would you measure belief?

it's always funny when you recite statistics.

At one time, the majority of people did believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It wasn't until Copernicus and Galileo that this theory was challenged. Since the majority believed in an earth-centered theory, it was up to the minority, those like Galileo who supported a sun-centered theory, to prove their extraordinary claim. People weren't just going to take their word for it. They had to prove it!

Gee willikers! They had to prove it! That sure puts holes in my Atheism (with a capital "A").

It surely couldn't have been that the geocentric model had observations that served as evidence (although faulty), coupled with older myths of a flat earth that hadn't died out from the general pre-Enlightenment populace?


...Nah

So no, I don't agree with the atheist tenet that the burden of proof is on the believer. It is the atheist who is making the extraordinary claim, as they are in the minority. The burden of proof is on atheists. It is up to them to prove that what the majority of society believes is false.

1. You don't know what the word "tenet" means if you're using it with the world "atheist" beforehand.
2. You have no clue what burden of proof is, how it works, and what it hopes to accomplish.
3. Read a list of logical fallacies and analyze your arguments. I've told you this before. Your arguments are very poorly constructed and you fail to realize the folly of your ways. Stop it.

[tackattack]

I just got an image of that mad TV skit.

[youtube]BYLMTvxOaeE[/youtube]

[Fluké]

I haven't read all the posts, so don't know if someone said this but you're never called to prove a negative. It is poor reasoning.

Sorry, Paul the Human ... I like you and alll .. but I don't think there is (or that this is) proof on the non-existence of God ...

He wasn't serious. He was making a tongue in cheek stab at AngelThMan's ridiculous posts.

Oh I feel sheepish now

[Paul the Human]

I haven't read all the posts, so don't know if someone said this but you're never called to prove a negative. It is poor reasoning.

Sorry, Paul the Human ... I like you and alll .. but I don't think there is (or that this is) proof on the non-existence of God ...

He wasn't serious. He was making a tongue in cheek stab at AngelThMan's ridiculous posts.

Oh I feel sheepish now

Don't worry. Heheh! I was trying to point out that calling something 'evidence' doesn't make it 'evidence', but I wrapped it in some actual facts to cloud the issue. That's what theists seem to like doing, so I thought I'd give it a go. It was fun.