[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Silver]

It's easy to use hindsight to imagine it is simply better to answer I don't know to every single thing for which there is zero evidence to support its existence.

Yet, there is also something known as intellectual integrity by which an individual readily changes his mind when proper evidence is provided. Until such evidence becomes available, it is perfectly reasonable to state to know that something does not exist.

[Acrobat]

The burden of proof only ever makes sense for positive claims of existence, for which the individual must then support the argument due to the fact that there is no evidence for existence.

No it doesn't silly. Holocaust deniers have a burden of proof.

If I said Obama doesn't exist, and that he's just a figment of our imagination I would have a burden of proof as well. 

The reason why you fool yourself in the gnome example, is because everyone shares the belief in their non-existense, so we'd not going to ask you to support it.

---

It's easy to use hindsight to imagine it is simply better to answer I don't know to every single thing for which there is zero evidence to support its existence.

Do we have zero evidence one way or the other regarding the question of Gods existence?

I have zero evidence one way or the other regarding your marital status. Which leads me to a lack of belief, rather than to a belief that you're not married.

[Silver]

Holocaust deniers are just ignorant, like flat earthers and creationists. They prefer to ignore the historical and scientific evidence.

Stating that Obama is not real is just a poor analogy.

Simply put, when something does not exist and there is no evidence of its existence, to state that the burden of proof is on the one claiming non-existence is illogical.

---

Do we have zero evidence one way or the other regarding the question of Gods existence?

I have zero evidence one way or the other regarding your marital status. Which leads me to a lack of belief, rather than to a belief that you're not married.

First, prove god exists. Without first establishing evidence of god's existence, I am perfectly reasonable in claiming that god does not exist. That is how burden of proof works.

*shows you my marriage certificate*
Now show me god.

[Acrobat]

Holocaust deniers are just ignorant, like flat earthers and creationists. They prefer to ignore the historical and scientific evidence.

Stating that Obama is not real is just a poor analogy.

Simply put, when something does not exist and there is no evidence of its existence, to state that the burden of proof is on the one claiming non-existence is illogical.

At this point you're  just being obtuse. 

It's pretty simple buddy, a lack of evidence one way or the other, leads to a lack of belief one way or the other.

[Silver]

Precisely. The lack of evidence for god's existence means I do not believe in god's existence.

[Belacqua]

It's easy to use hindsight to imagine it is simply better to answer I don't know to every single thing for which there is zero evidence to support its existence.

Yet, there is also something known as intellectual integrity by which an individual readily changes his mind when proper evidence is provided. Until such evidence becomes available, it is perfectly reasonable to state to know that something does not exist.

It's precisely a commitment to intellectual integrity which demands we don't claim knowledge we don't have. 

You don't know whether or not extraterrestrials exist. For you to claim the knowledge that they don't exist is going too far.

---

Precisely. The lack of evidence for god's existence means I do not believe in god's existence.

I think this is a very reasonable statement. 

But please notice it is not the same as the one you made before.

"I don't believe it exists" is NOT equal to "I know it doesn't exist." 

Several people on this forum are very committed to this distinction: "I lack belief because I lack evidence" is NOT the same as "I have proof it doesn't exist." 

I hope someone else -- a more passionate anti-religion type -- will join in here to emphasize this distinction.

[Silver]

I do not need evidence something does not exist. I need evidence something does exist. If there is no evidence for its existence, I will not believe in its existence and I will thereby reasonably claim to know it does not exist.

The logic really is that simple.

[EgoDeath]

If you mean by "divine" that it really comes from God, then no, people can't make it divine. It actually comes from God or it doesn't. 

I thought it was useful to have a separate term -- "holy" -- to mean that people hold something to be spiritually important, whether it comes from God or not. 

So for example, I can refer to a Hindu holy site as holy, even though I don't think the Hindu gods really exist. It's a holy site because people say it's holy. 

So all you're saying is, if we use the world holy in a certain way, then people find it holy.

You don't think vast numbers of people think that these books are the divine word of god, to be taken literally? What makes them wrong?

It was certainly serious to the people doing the commentary. It was serious business to them. I can understand that you don't find it worth listening to, but that's your judgment call. 

Um, okay? What value has the Bible provided to the world...? Wars? Discrimination? Hatred for non-believers?

And tradition doesn't mean shit. Period. Things are either good for us or they're not. Saying we're continuing something "because it's tradition" is about as good as saying nothing.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

It's easy to use hindsight to imagine it is simply better to answer I don't know to every single thing for which there is zero evidence to support its existence.

Yet, there is also something known as intellectual integrity by which an individual readily changes his mind when proper evidence is provided. Until such evidence becomes available, it is perfectly reasonable to state to know that something does not exist.

It's precisely a commitment to intellectual integrity which demands we don't claim knowledge we don't have. 

You don't know whether or not extraterrestrials exist. For you to claim the knowledge that they don't exist is going too far.

---

Precisely. The lack of evidence for god's existence means I do not believe in god's existence.

I think this is a very reasonable statement. 

But please notice it is not the same as the one you made before.

"I don't believe it exists" is NOT equal to "I know it doesn't exist." 

Several people on this forum are very committed to this distinction: "I lack belief because I lack evidence" is NOT the same as "I have proof it doesn't exist." 

I hope someone else -- a more passionate anti-religion type -- will join in here to emphasize this distinction.

Sorry to pop in Bel.....

The one thing about/between;

Extraterrestrials existing (Or not)

and/Vs,

Deities existing (Or not)

Is that dieties would seem.to be 'Supernatural' and extraterrestrials are simply a postulation about the nature of the reality around us.

Nothing actually precludes extraterrestrials from existing.

The lack of anything supernatural would seem to precludes anything supernatural existing.

Much cheers.

[Belacqua]

So all you're saying is, if we use the world holy in a certain way, then people find it holy.

No, the opposite. If people find a thing holy, then we are reasonable to use the word "holy." 

You don't think vast numbers of people think that these books are the divine word of god, to be taken literally? What makes them wrong?

Vast numbers of people do think that these books are the divine word of god. They are wrong because there is no god. 

Saying we're continuing something "because it's tradition" is about as good as saying nothing.

People sometimes continue things because it's tradition. I've never said it's good to continue something because it's tradition. If it's a good thing to do, then it's probably a good thing to continue. As I said before, there are good traditions and bad traditions.