I can't "disprove god", . . . so I'm the "idiot".

DotNotInOz wrote:Nothing like some of St. Paul's recommended love, huh?

Apparently, they've never heard that the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.

I've seen some atheists (who are obviously very bad at debating) claim "you can't prove a negative, so I never have the burden of proof."

Genocon wrote:

DotNotInOz wrote:Nothing like some of St. Paul's recommended love, huh?

Apparently, they've never heard that the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.

I've seen some atheists (who are obviously very bad at debating) claim "you can't prove a negative, so I never have the burden of proof."

That's a standard of academic debate, Genocon, so actually they're simply upholding a basic principle. They're also maintaining what's known as "negative presumption" which means in this case that we are justified in assuming that God doesn't exist unless and until proven otherwise. That which we know and which can be proven composes our reality until someone proves otherwise. This is part of why religions often state that one must "have faith" that God exists.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim or the assertion contrary to known reality especially when it is something like the existence of God which is not readily evident, observable or measurable. Thus, the affirmative in a debate has the first speech since they're proposing something contrary to known reality. The negative responds, and the affirmative concludes the debate because proving their claim is more difficult than the negative's role of simply demanding that they do so and demonstrating that the validity of their claim is unlikely based upon what we already know.

As one savvy Christian argued in a chat room once, "So, what if God DOES exist and we simply don't have the means of showing that to be the case as yet?" The reply was as it should have been, "Then, the most accurate and honest position is to say that we don't know for certain. We should all be agnostic on this."

Isn't intellectual honestly grand!

Well, people get freaky about their gods and their mom, you know. Rationality goes out the window.

Dot is right, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

If someone asserts to me that "There is no God," I think it is fair game for me to ask, "How do you know that?" If they wish to convince me, they must show me evidence or sound logic; if they cannot, I am free to say, "You have not convinced me."

Likewise, if someone asserts to me that "There is a God," I think it is fair game for me to ask, "How do you know that?" If they wish to convince me, they must show me evidence or sound logic; if they cannot, I am free to say, "You have not convinced me."

The same goes for "My God is the only God" or "There is no path to heaven save for Jesus" or "Bigfoot created the universe on his Cray supercomputer." Don't try to convince me unless you have evidence.

DotNotInOz wrote:

Genocon wrote:

DotNotInOz wrote:Nothing like some of St. Paul's recommended love, huh?

Apparently, they've never heard that the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.

I've seen some atheists (who are obviously very bad at debating) claim "you can't prove a negative, so I never have the burden of proof."

That's a standard of academic debate, Genocon, so actually they're simply upholding a basic principle. They're also maintaining what's known as "negative presumption" which means in this case that we are justified in assuming that God doesn't exist unless and until proven otherwise. That which we know and which can be proven composes our reality until someone proves otherwise. This is part of why religions often state that one must "have faith" that God exists.

Sure, but it's a bit different when you provoke a debate by making the assertion to theists (almost always Christians) that there is no god, but then insist you don't have to back up anything you say, then declare victory and that Christians Are Dumb. I used to see it fairly often on debate boards when I was more obsessed with them, as if atheism is some magically air-tight position that is immune to all argument whatsoever, simply by virtue of being a negative assertion. Like I said, bad at debating.

I liked the arguments from atheists that if you said that you met your god then you were hallucinating because you had an experience that you couldn't prove.

Genocon wrote:Sure, but it's a bit different when you provoke a debate by making the assertion to theists (almost always Christians) that there is no god, but then insist you don't have to back up anything you say, then declare victory and that Christians Are Dumb. I used to see it fairly often on debate boards when I was more obsessed with them, as if atheism is some magically air-tight position that is immune to all argument whatsoever, simply by virtue of being a negative assertion. Like I said, bad at debating.

No, just being what I call AA's (atheist assholes). I wouldn't dignify that assault as debate any way you look at it. As Zen pointed out above, you present your evidence if you want to attempt to persuade someone that your position is the better one.

That position you allude to, Genocon, is just as inexcusable, IMO, as the Christian one that the Bible is inassailable proof, so no one ought to question it as evidence, especially when they use it to "prove" that God exists because the Bible says so.

You know, as a polytheist, I sometimes feel caught in the middle between the Christians and the Atheists. The Atheists lob usually fairly wide attacks against "believers" and the Christians return the favor against nonbelievers, and apparently I fit in both categories and yet neither category. So I feel attacked either way. There is this podcast Good God/No God.

http://goodgodnogod.libsyn.com/index.php?post_category=general

I tried to listen to it, because I thought I might learn something, but found that they got stuck in the same old ruts. I think it was partly because they couldn't seem to wrap there head around the idea that there might be a third option.

I thought it was just me.

There's a fourth option: apatheism

And there's probably a fifth and sixth option. Just more illustration of my problem.

sacrificialgoddess wrote:Well you know Deavon, one of the keys to changing to a new religion is dealing with the crap of the old religion. Heaven, hell, what people assert is true without thinking about it, all that is a part of it.

That's what bnet did for me. My ex felt it was really bad for me to spend so much time on there debating, arguing, fighting, screaming, etc. but that was what I needed to really transition out of Christianity. Once I spent about 2 years doing that, it was over.

Thanks for your input, TED. I'm probably the same. . . . . and may be close to that end as well. But I still feel the need to remind myself of what I'm walking away from and why. The anger part comes in, from time to time, because I can't believe people would condone such a system so blindly, or even more, . . . those who DO understand all the immoral/unethical stuff, and say, "who are YOU to judge the creator. . . he can do what he wants. . . and if you don't do what he commands, he has the right to discipline or destroy."

I hope to find a much more peaceful deity to follow.

For me, I had to vent and debate it, and get pretty nasty from time to time to warrant a few warnings and temporary bans. I said the exact same things you're saying. For the most part, now, I could care less; the only times I get really upset or heated are in-person religious confrontations which for me are very few and far between. No, I'm not totally at peace, I'm just saying things are a hell of a lot better. The hatred/anger is a natural grieving process when we lose a loved one, a relationship, or a faith.

I have always said regarding the "proof" topic of this thread, that if there were absolute proof of something we would all be a part of that spiritual path. We'd all be atheists, we'd all be Baptists, we'd all be Muslim; or whatever. Very few people can deny absolute proof; Gravity is totally illogical, but until we get high and think we can fly, we believe in it. We have proof it works.

What we do have is a reality that manifests itself in different ways to everyone. We've got a flower that to some people God created from his mind, to the atheist scientist it's purely evolved over the years and is that color to attract bees for its own survival, to the Muslim it's gifted by Allah, to the Divine Scientist it's an expression of the Divine Idea, to the Christian Scientist, Buddhists, and others, it doesn't exist at all.

I think that we all want to ultimately be right. When you hold to a specific religious thought, an attack on it is an attack you because the person attacking is indirectly [or directly, sometimes] calling you "an idiot for believing that crap." When I was firmly in the Christian faith, I would "take a stand" against one who was attacking it. . . . . . and I even dropped a university class because the professor dared to state that "anyone who believes that the earth is young, come talk to me after class and I will set the record straight". I didn't want to hear what he had to say. . . . . . .but later, started digging and came to the realization that he was right after all . . . and I should have stayed in the class.

I guess people are too comfortable to just go with whatever their pastor [or anyone who claims their faith] as the absolute truth, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

Having said all that, I know that it is currently "impossible" to prove anyone's faith. That could change, at some point in the future, when we have advanced to a point when a tool sensitive enough to detect it [the "supernatural"] is created. Until then, all of these debates really ARE a waste of time. Faith alone isn't going to win an argument because the next guy, with a different faith, can be just as sure, just as devout.

DeavonReye wrote: I guess people are too comfortable to just go with whatever their pastor [or anyone who claims their faith] as the absolute truth, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

I'm not sure that a lot of them allow themselves to think in terms of whether or not their faith's teachings make sense.

I recall when as a teenager I began questioning various aspects of Catholic teachings about heaven, hell and God. When I posed a conundrum or two to my mom, her standard answer was that there are some things that don't make sense to us which is why we must simply have faith.

Having said all that, I know that it is currently "impossible" to prove anyone's faith. That could change, at some point in the future, when we have advanced to a point when a tool sensitive enough to detect it [the "supernatural"] is created.

This is why I find some of the research currently being done on children's past life recall so intriguing. What I've read of it makes me wonder if it won't be long before we have much more substantial evidence that reincarnation is factual. Certainly interesting!

That WOULD be interesting, for sure.

I'm not sure on how I feel about reincarnation. My life hasn't been "one full of much joy", . . . but then, I know that many people on this planet have had a tougher life than me. There are those who have had a lot better life, too. I hope to think that I've been a good person, . . . enough to warrant a better life, the next time around, but then to think that may actually be self serving. I don't know.

As for what you said about "you just have to have faith about that", that is a common phrase in christianity. What is not understood is pushed to the back burner rather than taking the time to discover WHY it doesn't make sense, and if the doctrine needs to be reworked or even thrown into the trash. Change, for that which is more true, should never be a bad thing. "Not questioning" leads to stagnation.

As an atheist, you are making no claims whatsoever, which means you have not a thing to prove. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive claim. If one claims a god or god exists, the burden of proof is on them, which is no different than if I claim leprechauns, unicorns or gnomes exist.

I don't think that this is something that has to be proven to other people. I claim my gods exist and I have evidence enough for me. Whether or not you believe in my gods does not matter to me. The same is true for the beings that appear in myths. A personal belief is different from a fact that is backed up with physical proof.

I think the problem here is people mix up beliefs and facts.

gillyflower wrote:I think the problem here is people mix up beliefs and facts.

You and I may know those differences, but not everyone in our society does.

I am just praying for the rapture to hurry up and get here and take the *&*&ing Christians home. Then maybe we can get some stuff done down here.

sacrificialgoddess wrote:Well you know Deavon, one of the keys to changing to a new religion is dealing with the crap of the old religion. Heaven, hell, what people assert is true without thinking about it, all that is a part of it.

That is so true! On this planet there are billions of people who call themselves (name the religion) simply because they were born into it - never questioning the right or wrong, truth or falseness, of certain doctrines they're force-fed in childhood.

If someone has it drummed into them from the time they learn to walk that if they (heaven forbid!!) leave that religion they'll burn for eternity, then it takes some amount of courage to venture beyond that safe place looking for answers to questions they're either afraid to ask or, having asked, received blank stares.