The dumbest version of atheism

100% correct. One cannot be both Gnostic and Agnostic.

I'm not sure how you think you've countered my point because neither atheists nor agnostics are sure god exists.

 

Positive proof is proof that support a positive claim. As it, this exists because of X.

Negative proof would say this doesn't exist because of X.

 

According to some dictionaries, expecially those that only focus on common definitions of words.

One that define words based on what those words actually mean define it the same way I do.

BTW, where have I shown generally poor treatment of religious people?

Making up more lies are you?

 

Great. Now, using your private definition of 'positive proof', show that 'positive proof' that "this (the universe) exists because of X (the unknown variable)".

 

Well, first off, you have not shown any contradictions. You have only shown what you perceive as a contradiction, and perceptions are as numerous in subjective notions as there are number of people ever having lived on this little green orb. Show your proof of a contradiction in those stories as you call them.

 

Positive proof of God was not the topic of discussion that you brought up. You brought up the Pink Panda. So where is your positive proof of that Pink Panda.

 

So you're just playing games. What a waste.

There are two Bible stories that portray the same event: When the women went to Jesus' tomb and found it open and Jesus gone.

Do you agree with that? If not, make a logical argument for why you do not, supporting your claim with evidence.

In one story, the women encounter two beings; in the other they encounter one.

Do you agree that is a contradiction? If not, please explain why not.

In one story, the women tell everyone what they saw. In the other, they tell no one.

Do you agree that is a contradiction? If not, please explain why not.

Or avoid the question yet again and prove my initial point: That some hard-core believers simply refuse to address contradictions in the Bible.

 

Whether or not atheism is ever resonsible for anything is a side issue. Why don't you stick to the real issue of showing the existence of God?

This is crap. Seems like you have some sort of magical semantic process that involves saying the same exact thing twice and claiming they are different.

 

The universe exists because it can be objectively and repeatedly observed.

 

His evidence was already shown. Are you going to address it, or ignore it some more?

 

Presumptuous notion on your part. Care to offer any proof of that claim?

Are you sure that it is speaking of the same event? Were you there to witness what was said and done and notice who the participants were? No? Hmmm.

What I believe is irrelevant to the claims that you have made. You have not shown any contradictions and subsequently the ball is still in your court to prove those claims.

Now you are changing the parameters from your original statements. Originally you stated that the women encountered "angels". Please be consistent. As you are now relating the story, those "beings" could have been giraffes.

I do not agree because of your changes of the parameters veering far away from your original statements.

In the one story, everyone could be the 11 and the others that were with them... in the other story, it could be no-one due to the fact that it did not say where they went.

See above statement.

You are the one avoiding the point, and the point being that you have not PROVEN any contradiction. Do you KNOW what the word PROVEN means?

 

Yet more dodging and focusing on irrelevant details.

The one argument you seem to make is that the two stories, which clearly describe the same event, are not describing the same event. Anyone familiar with the Bible, or simply reading the two Gospels in question, would recognize that they are describing the same event. You are willfully ignoring the plain and obvious truth.

The rest of your 'argument' is quibbling about terminology that, as I've noted in subsequent posts, is completely irrelevant to the point.

So I'm done. If you think the idea that the two stories are describing different events is persuasive, feel free. Any rational observer will know you're full of it.

 

He most certainly did. The day of resurrection. I'm sure you saw the post. If not, I am quite sure you know the story(s).
No answer?
Any bible scholar care to answer?

 

Because the issue is not our burden of proof, its atheism's burden of proof as required by logic - you know ... standards?

Odd that you would say that, because the same words with slightly different arrangement suddenly become totally different conclusions with totally different requirements in terms of logic ... which you reject, but its atheists making exactly that claim. Odd once again.

I think we call this ... reversing.

 

He who, most certainly did what?

What day was that, and whose resurrection are you speaking about?

What post. I have not been out in the field lately to inspect any of the posts that are there.

What story? Is it a story about a post?

No answer to what?

Answer what?

 

The burden of proof. In criminal and civil law it's with the prosecution or the plaintiff. In the world of ideas surely it's the claimant who has to provide the evidence, which may or may not amount to a proof?

If a believer claims God exists then the burden of proof is upon them.
If a non-believer claims God doesn't exist then the burden or proof is upon them. That might seem a bit unfair and some may say you can't prove a negative, but to be fair, if it's a claim then the claimant should show evidence.

Now I know why I'm agnostic. I can't be bothered doing either

 

Why are you introducing law in a concept of logic?

Anyone who makes a claim has to back it up. Them's the rules.

And if you are too cowardly to make a claim at all? Well, I suppose that is an option, but that, in my case, smacks of extreme cowardice. As if being wrong is the worst thing that can happen, so just pretend to be above it all, eh?

 

As you have aptly stated, it makes no difference whether the person is a believer or non-believer, or whether the person is claiming either an existence of God or a non-existence of God. Whoever makes the claim has the burden.

I will go a step further with this discussion. If, when speaking of my house, I should say "my house is spacious." I have the burden of proof to show that my house is spacious. Likewise, when speaking of my wife, should I say "my wife is beautiful.", I also have the burden of proof on that claim. Well, here is the problem: In both examples above, I can readily prove the existence of the house and the wife. On the other hand, I cannot prove that the house is 'spacious' or that my wife is "beautiful". Why? Because both of those terms (spacious and beautiful) are subjective terms and can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people; even to include some people saying that my house is cramped and my wife is ugly. All dependent upon personal perspective and opinion. So when a non-believer says "God is a tyrant", they are essentially saying that the proof of Gods existence is obvious yet the proof of His being a tyrant has not been substantiated. 'is' = 'be' = 'exist' .

 

LMAO, TS is going to end up a atheist one day.

Its why this bothers him, because he knows logic leads to not believing in scripture, which is where the belief in god comes from!

 

Not so much cowardice as lethargy.

 

LOL--so you say that if you open the closet and you don't see a monster, then that proves that the monster doesn't exist. So if I open the closet, and I don't see god, does that mean that god doesn't exist?

and what about an invisible monster? god is invisible, so if I asked you to prove the absence of an invisible monster, how could you do that?

 

For anybody who still wonders what this "argument from absurdity" or similar is all about (yahhwn), me thinks something was misunderstood about it, it's not a fallacious argument.
It goes like this:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/152-reductio-ad-absurdum

 

What nonsense is this? That person is a non-believer, so clearly they do NOT think the proof of Gods existence is obvious. Anyone who is not a simpleton can see that they're granting a hypothesis that they don't actually agree with for the sake of discussion. And you are no simpleton. So why make an obviously preposterous claim like this? Is it just more semantic wankery?

 

Your fundamental premise is just wrong. If I make the positive assertion that there are no cows in my front yard, I don't rely on logic. I look at my front yard. I can find no evidence of cows. I conclude that there are no cows in my front yard. If I can assume there is some common understanding of what all the terms in the statement mean, which I do, I don't think any reasonable person could claim that I am being unreasonable for being a nocowsinmyfrontyardist, that that is not a completely justified true belief. Believing there are no cows in my front is not a belief system. Defining it is a lack of belief that cows are in my front doesn't change anything. The statements "I believe there are no cows in my front yard", "I don't believe there are cows in my front yard", and "I lack the belief that there are cows in my front yard" are identical substantive statements. I don't need semantic magic to go from one to another. They are the same thing. Period. And still, none of them are belief systems. It is simply a justified true belief.

I have been doing this long enough to know what comes next. You will argue that that belief may not be a belief system, but the materialistic epistemology that I relied on to reach the belief is. Guilty as charged. I believe that if one person claims that something exists, then that person should be able to produce evidence that everybody can at least agree is evidence. It is not necessary that everybody agrees that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that the thing exists, but it has to at least be such a thing that people can't respond that they can't, no matter how hard they try, even see the evidence. If my neighbor comes along and tells me there are cows in my front yard, that he can feel it in his heart, that if I just open my heart to the cows in my front yard, then I too will know that there are cows in my front yard, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that he is bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy. And if you could be honest about this for one second, so would you. You wouldn't respect the beliefs of the cowsinmyfrontyardian. When it comes to the question of cows in my front yard, I would be my house that a materialist epistemology is perfectly acceptable to you. The irony, of course, is that if my other neighbor comes along and says that the cow guy is wrong, that there are actually alligators in my front yard, we all, including the cow guy, will think the alligator guy is bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy.

There are some conditions in which we are completely justified in saying something doesn't exist. It has little to do with logic. The only question is whether we are justified in saying this about the various gods that people have created. Following the exact same reasoning as with the cows in my front yard, I would say, Yes. I am completely justified in believing your gods don't exist. I am completely justified in not respecting your belief in them. You ask "What evidence did you examine and find unconvincing? What standards have to met before you would be convinced?" The answer to that couldn't be any simpler. We find unconvincing all the evidence that you guys have yet to produce. The standards are the same for convincing me that there is are cows in my front yard. Show me the (*)(*)(*)(*) cows. Is that really that hard to understand. Show me the cows. Now, I can't speak for all atheists, but I doubt that many will disagree that that is a starting point. You say "these answers are never provided, they are skipped entirely." That's just flat out nonsense. These answers are everywhere. Go to any atheist web site or forum, or read a book by an atheist and they will almost certainly talk about the criteria for knowledge. The fact that you can even make this claim just illuminates how disingenuous your whole post is.

Finally, to say that your failure to convince us that your gods exist is equivalent the scientific community's failure to convince Creationists that evolution is a fact is beyond ludicrous. There are numerous writing and lectures by atheists who dissect your Bible, as just one example, line by line. There is nothing in there that we haven't addressed. There's not a logical or factual contradiction in there that hasn't been thoroughly exposed. On the other side, you would be hard pressed to find a Creationist who has ever opened a biology text book. Yes, I am familiar with Dr. Behe's work, but he is the exception, and his arguments have also been refuted by people qualified to do it. But for the most part, the Creationists are Kirk Cameron running around saying "Where are the transitional species?", thinking he has made a devastating critique of evolution, when if he had the most basic understanding of the theory he is critiquing he would realize that all he needed to do was look in the mirror. Every species that exists, has ever existed, or will exist is a transitional species. Show an atheist a Bible, he will go through it line by line pointing out contradictions and just plain silliness. Show a Creationist a biology book, he will throw it back at you claiming it's Satan's work. It is not in any way, shape, or form the same thing. If you can't see that, you are just being willfully ignorant.

 

And that is the basis of the entire problem. A universally binding agreement on what constitutes evidence. You see, 'everybody' is all inclusive... and I for one do not agree with the scientific requirements of 'evidence'. Therefore, the problem will persist as long as at least I am alive and kicking. Therefore, your argument is falsified.