Greetings Atheists

[leo-rcc]

Ah you see that is not how this works. You claim to have proof of God(s), so it is up to you to support that claim.

And you claim God does not exist, it's up to you to support that claim.

No I don't claim any such thing. You seem to confuse theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. Theists believe some form of a god exists, atheism does not accept this claim. Gnostics claim to know a deity exist, agnostics do not claim to know.

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if deities exist, but until proven otherwise I am not going to assume one does exist.

[Epimethean]

Greetings, xtian. You have come to the right place to confront yourself with the overwhelming fact that your antiquated belief system is past its sell-by date. Helpful atheists are waiting to show you that your absolute lack of evidence to substantiate your claims is a burden you carry and which will always weigh you down in the company of thinking people. I wish you nongodspeed in coming to grips with reality so that you can be recognized as fully human and not merely a troll.

[ElDinero]

I have already explained that we do not assert that a God does not exist. We say there is not enough evidence to say that one does.

Then you are not an Atheist, you are an agnostic of some sort. Perhaps you are on the wrong forum?

No, I know what I am, thanks. A(without)theist(belief in God). An atheist COULD say 'I believe there is no God', but all that is required is 'I do not believe there is any reason to believe in God'.

Now I've been kind enough to give you some pointers on how to interact here without getting banned, because I like debate and discussion and I think more theists here could be a good thing. But your 'show you the light' shit has got to stop. It's against the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

A quick explanation of the burden of proof. The easiest way to illustrate it is Russell's Teapot, which I quote here:

'If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time'

Obviously you don't believe that the Teapot exists, and the burden would be on the claimant to prove it exists, not for you to disprove it.

Finally, there is a thread in I think the Religion forum called 'Evidence for God's Existence'. Go and put your proof forward in there and we will respond.

[Zen Badger]

And you claim God does not exist, it's up to you to support that claim.

No, we claim that there is a lack of substantsive evidence for a god or gods, get it right.

I have many arguments (scientific, philosophical, logical, theological, historical) supporting the existence of God(s).

That's nice, do you have any actual evidence to go with those arguments?

For pragmatic reasons I will allow you to chose where our discussion start.

Ok, scientific then.

I practice what I preach. If you can convince me God(s) don't exist, or that my arguments defending there existence is insubstantial, I will denounce all theism and embrace Atheism. I throw down my gauntlet sir.

No, you won't.
But let the bullshit begin.




[/quote]

[Jesuslovesyou]

I don't know what dictionary your all using, but mine clearly states the following:

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/

Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Now I've been kind enough to give you some pointers on how to interact here without getting banned

These are the threats I was referring to, it's OK to be scared ElDinero. Only those who fear they are wrong need to implement censorship. Ban me if it helps you maintain the bubble you live in, otherwise stop threatening me.

Obviously you don't believe that the Teapot exists, and the burden would be on the claimant to prove it exists, not for you to disprove it.

God is not a teapot. Unlike an object a God is a force/being which cannot be clearly perceived by humans. God is a concept, something which encompasses the entire universe, exists in every atom of the universe. Therefore arguments for the existence of God(s) must not rely on physical, tangible evince as there is none. Your comparison of God to a teapot shows how little you understand what a theist means when they say 'God(s)'.

I will provide you with an argument for the existence of God(s): Ockham's razor.

[KichigaiNeko]

Please fuck off

[ElDinero]

These are the threats I was referring to, it's OK to be scared ElDinero. Only those who fear they are wrong need to implement censorship. Ban me if it helps you maintain the bubble you live in, otherwise stop threatening me.

God is not a teapot. Unlike an object a God is a force/being which cannot be clearly perceived by humans. God is a concept, something which encompasses the entire universe, exists in every atom of the universe. Therefore arguments for the existence of God(s) must not rely on physical, tangible evince as there is none. Your comparison of God to a teapot shows how little you understand what a theist means when they say 'God(s)'.

I will provide you with an argument for the existence of God(s): Ockham's razor.

I'm not threatening you. I'm not even a moderator, so can't ban you. I was pointing out that you agreed to the forum rules when you joined, which include not preaching, which is what you were doing in your first several posts. Believe me if you continue to do it, you will be banned, and it's nothing to do with being scared of your presumably brilliant evidence that nobody else has ever shown us before. Now, you seem to have settled down and are attempting to begin reasonable discourse, so that's fine.

You are possibly being obtuse with regards Russell's Teapot, but if you're being sincere, you've missed the point completely. The point is you are asking people to disprove God, but that isn't how the burden of proof works. Otherwise I could ask you to disprove anything (like the teapot). The burden of proof rests with the claimant.

As I said, there is a thread already dedicated to this topic in the religion sub-forum. You say you have proof, so take a trip over there and let's have it.

[leo-rcc]

I don't know what dictionary your all using, but mine clearly states the following:

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/

Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.

There you go, if you base your definitions on a dictionary instead of asking what our position really is it is easy enough to get mixed up in futile debates. Several dictionaries have different explanations on the term atheism.

[Epimethean]

"God is not a teapot. Unlike an object a God is a force/being which cannot be clearly perceived by humans."

You're on the path to atheism there. Keep working it, baby. Right now, the teapot is in the lead.

[Zen Badger]

Poe......