Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

13 flaws (many) atheists make.

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:03:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.

No, the Burden of proof lies with whoever is attempting to change the opinions of another. If you want to convince a bunch of theists, that God doesn't exist, the burden is on you, because if you do nothing, they maintain their current beliefs.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:09:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.

Actually it would be on you to prove to that that the sun is not made of marshmallows, since the burden would be on you to persuade everyone else to believe otherwise, despite how silly their claims are.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:24:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 8:09:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.

Actually it would be on you to prove to that that the sun is not made of marshmallows, since the burden would be on you to persuade everyone else to believe otherwise, despite how silly their claims are.

BoP rests on the side making the affirmative claim. God cannot just be assumed to exist. If we debated whether socialpinko existed and I was Pro I would have to make a case for that.

"In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."

http://www.nizkor.org...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:45:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 8:24:54 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:09:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.

Actually it would be on you to prove to that that the sun is not made of marshmallows, since the burden would be on you to persuade everyone else to believe otherwise, despite how silly their claims are.

BoP rests on the side making the affirmative claim. God cannot just be assumed to exist. If we debated whether socialpinko existed and I was Pro I would have to make a case for that.

"In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."

http://www.nizkor.org...

No you are wrong, like many of atheists. The burden of proof is on whoever states something is true, if an atheist says there is no God, then it is their job to try and convince the next men that there is no God. If a theist says there is a God and an atheist says there is no God, then the burden of proof is on both of them. Nothing should be assumed true unless proven otherwise, that is false. For example; atheism should not be assumed true, and neither should theism. It is simply a case of 'lets see what the evidences says'. If I said to you, "God exists", then that statement demands reasons to be logical and therefore true. Although I have a burden to prove to you that God exists, you also have a burden to prove that God does not exist. Since how can you say that a God that can do anything cannot exist? You can therefore only believe and thus you can only persuade another with arguments that can only convince, not prove.

Bigfoot, sense data, aliens and what not can also not be disproved, therefore those who do not believe in those things must also give evidence that they cannot exist.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:51:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 8:45:56 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:24:54 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:09:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.

Actually it would be on you to prove to that that the sun is not made of marshmallows, since the burden would be on you to persuade everyone else to believe otherwise, despite how silly their claims are.

BoP rests on the side making the affirmative claim. God cannot just be assumed to exist. If we debated whether socialpinko existed and I was Pro I would have to make a case for that.

"In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."

http://www.nizkor.org...

No you are wrong, like many of atheists. The burden of proof is on whoever states something is true, if an atheist says there is no God, then it is their job to try and convince the next men that there is no God. If a theist says there is a God and an atheist says there is no God, then the burden of proof is on both of them. Nothing should be assumed true unless proven otherwise, that is false. For example; atheism should not be assumed true, and neither should theism. It is simply a case of 'lets see what the evidences says'. If I said to you, "God exists", then that statement demands reasons to be logical and therefore true. Although I have a burden to prove to you that God exists, you also have a burden to prove that God does not exist. Since how can you say that a God that can do anything cannot exist? You can therefore only believe and thus you can only persuade another with arguments that can only convince, not prove.

Bigfoot, sense data, aliens and what not can also not be disproved, therefore those who do not believe in those things must also give evidence that they cannot exist.

The text in bold, italic and underlined is mistaken. What I was meant to say is, that is true, that nothing should not be assumed true without unless proven otherwise. Problem for atheists is that atheism hasn't been proven true and thus no one should assume God does not exist.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 8:52:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 8:24:54 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:09:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.

Actually it would be on you to prove to that that the sun is not made of marshmallows, since the burden would be on you to persuade everyone else to believe otherwise, despite how silly their claims are.

BoP rests on the side making the affirmative claim.

The external, mind-independent world doesn't exist. Persons don't exist. Minds don't exist. Composite objects don't exist. Objective moral values don't exist. I'm willing to bet you deny every single one of those propositions. Okay, you have the BoP now.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 1:02:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is impossible to take a god's-existence-neutral-action, as many proposed gods are all-encompassing. Hence, one needs an operating assumption on the matter.

When one needs an operating assumption about X's existence, the assumption is it isn't there, the burden is it is, lest one also spend one's time hunting for a species of unicorn the blood of which makes one immortal.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:59:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Another thing atheist assume is that science is complete and is no, way, shape, or form wrong. To some atheist, science is their God.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 8:56:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

I don't see any evidence that Richard Dawkins wrote these. Nevertheless, let's address these:

1 . "Atheism isn't a belief, but the lack of a belief."

Since there is (currently) no scientifically verifiable evidence to support
either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called
beliefs.

Uhm, what? This makes absolutely, postiively, 0 sense. What if there was scientifically verifiable evidence? Would it stop being a belief? The association between science and belief is null. The issue here is what the definition of the word is, and science doesn't define words, people do. And people have defined atheism as (at least) the lack of belief in a god or gods. End of story.

2. "Atheism is not a-or has no-philosophy."

I don't know of anyone that has ever made the argument being countered here. At all. However, I propose an alternate interpretation. When someone says that "atheism is not a philosophy/worldview" they mean that in the sense above and beyond lacking a belief in a god. This is important because many theists will assume an atheist's position on subjects unrelated to god, such as: morality, politics, science, etc. While many atheists may agree on those topics, it is not appropriate to assume a person's stance on these topics simply because they are an atheist.

3. "Atheism is supported by science."

Again, I'm not sure of anyone that makes the specific argument being countered here. Especially considering that this presumes that we have accepted the first premise of what atheism is. Again, consider another interpretation:

Specific implementations of theism, such as Christianity, make claims about the phyiscal world, such as the order of events of creation. Science can test these claims and, in the example of a literal interpretation of Genesis, prove them wrong. So if science can discredit theistic views then, by virtual of the fact of being the negation of theism, atheism is subsequently supported.

4. "Atheism is supported by logic."

There are several issues here. First is similar to above. Since certain god-concepts can be disproved when they are shown to be logically incoherent, this simultaneously bolsters atheism, since atheism is the negation of theism.

Second, and this is why I don't believe this was written by Dawkins, is the statement: "In logic, it's impossible to prove a negative..." This statement is commonly attributed to James Randi and, as a statement of logic, is false. It is not a logical prinicple that you cannot prove a negative. Any statement can be worded in a positive or negative fashion. This means, in the realm of logic, all statements that aren't inherently contradictory can be proven.

Third, the issue with agnosticism. I don't agree with who agnosticism is used here (a person can be both an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist) but Dawkins has actually attacked the position of agnosticism, specifically with regards to god.

5. "The burden of proof is on theists."

These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.

Uhm, no. not just no, but hell no. In philosophy, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If a theist makes a claim, he has a burden of proof. If an atheist makes a claim, he also has a burden of proof. The notion that you can just get enough people to believe you and therefore bypass the burden of proof is insane. Yes, that is how religious has propogated over the millenia, but that doesn't make it right. Truth claims must stand on their own merits. Not through a history of killing everyone else that disagrees with you.

6. "There is no evidence to support a belief in God."

Testimonial evidence abounds.

Testimony isn't evidence. Period. Yes, in courts, testimonies are considered evidence, but the degree to which they contribute are becoming less and less as we understand the ways in which witness testimony is unreliable. Then again, we aren't in court. Furthermore, the manner in which testimonies are grouped together to support god is tantamount to collusion.

Also, Dawkins would never say, "It's yet another example of how atheism shuts down the mind."

7. "Theists should believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn."

Another insane appeal to popularity. The "refutation" in fact, attacks theism. It acknowledges that the only reason theists believe in gods is because it is the social norm. A lot of people do it. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a variation of Russell's Teapot, an argument Dawkins agrees with and has used himself!

8. "Religion is the major cause of war."

I'm not sure of any atheist that would make this statement. It certainly is a major cause of death, which seems to be in agreement here.

9. "The crusades and the inquisition show that Christianity is evil."

I agree with historians who say
that, had the Bible been available to the public, those events would've
never been allowed to happen.

First, who says that? Second, the Bible is available to the public now, and events like this still happen.

10. "The majority of prisoners/criminals are theists."

It's not that just a majority of prisoners/criminals are theists, but that they are disproportionately theist. If there is no correlation between theism and crime, then the population of criminals should be as theistic as the general population. It isn't, there are more theists in prison. Also, just because it may be in the best interest of a criminal to say he is a theist doesn't mean he is lying when he says he is a theist.

11. "Christians have a higher divorce rate than do atheists."

I don't know anyone that makes this argument. The rebuttal here is almost comical.

12. "Atheists do good deeds because it's the right thing to do, while
Christians do them because they want to get to heaven."

The rebuttal here assumes that atheists must subscribe to evolutionary psychology. A mistake many theists make.

13. "Can your all-powerful God create a rock that is too heavy for Him to
move?"

The statement demonstrates the inherent logical incoherence in omnipotence and, thus, the logical incoherence of any being that has omnipotence as an attribute.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 8:57:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 3:59:32 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Another thing atheist assume is that science is complete and is no, way, shape, or form wrong. To some atheist, science is their God.

No one assumes that. No one.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 11:31:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Atheism as the opposite of theism is fundamentally more logical but atheism in and of itself is not neutral. Only agnosticism is truly neutral.
Rob
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 11:41:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 11:31:26 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Atheism as the opposite of theism is fundamentally more logical but atheism in and of itself is not neutral. Only agnosticism is truly neutral.

Agnosticism is not neutral. Agnosticism is a statement regarding knowledge, while theism and atheism are statements about belief. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 11:43:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

First, this simply isn't the case. Second, this is trivial, as I can rephrase this:

The majority of the world does not accept Christianity.

The burden is now back on you to establish it.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 12:04:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 8:56:42 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

I don't see any evidence that Richard Dawkins wrote these. Nevertheless, let's address these:

1 . "Atheism isn't a belief, but the lack of a belief."

Since there is (currently) no scientifically verifiable evidence to support
either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called
beliefs.

Uhm, what? This makes absolutely, postiively, 0 sense. What if there was scientifically verifiable evidence? Would it stop being a belief? The association between science and belief is null. The issue here is what the definition of the word is, and science doesn't define words, people do. And people have defined atheism as (at least) the lack of belief in a god or gods. End of story.

2. "Atheism is not a-or has no-philosophy."

I don't know of anyone that has ever made the argument being countered here. At all. However, I propose an alternate interpretation. When someone says that "atheism is not a philosophy/worldview" they mean that in the sense above and beyond lacking a belief in a god. This is important because many theists will assume an atheist's position on subjects unrelated to god, such as: morality, politics, science, etc. While many atheists may agree on those topics, it is not appropriate to assume a person's stance on these topics simply because they are an atheist.

3. "Atheism is supported by science."

Again, I'm not sure of anyone that makes the specific argument being countered here. Especially considering that this presumes that we have accepted the first premise of what atheism is. Again, consider another interpretation:

Specific implementations of theism, such as Christianity, make claims about the phyiscal world, such as the order of events of creation. Science can test these claims and, in the example of a literal interpretation of Genesis, prove them wrong. So if science can discredit theistic views then, by virtual of the fact of being the negation of theism, atheism is subsequently supported.

4. "Atheism is supported by logic."

There are several issues here. First is similar to above. Since certain god-concepts can be disproved when they are shown to be logically incoherent, this simultaneously bolsters atheism, since atheism is the negation of theism.

Second, and this is why I don't believe this was written by Dawkins, is the statement: "In logic, it's impossible to prove a negative..." This statement is commonly attributed to James Randi and, as a statement of logic, is false. It is not a logical prinicple that you cannot prove a negative. Any statement can be worded in a positive or negative fashion. This means, in the realm of logic, all statements that aren't inherently contradictory can be proven.

Third, the issue with agnosticism. I don't agree with who agnosticism is used here (a person can be both an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist) but Dawkins has actually attacked the position of agnosticism, specifically with regards to god.

5. "The burden of proof is on theists."

These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.

Uhm, no. not just no, but hell no. In philosophy, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If a theist makes a claim, he has a burden of proof. If an atheist makes a claim, he also has a burden of proof. The notion that you can just get enough people to believe you and therefore bypass the burden of proof is insane. Yes, that is how religious has propogated over the millenia, but that doesn't make it right. Truth claims must stand on their own merits. Not through a history of killing everyone else that disagrees with you.

6. "There is no evidence to support a belief in God."

Testimonial evidence abounds.

Testimony isn't evidence. Period. Yes, in courts, testimonies are considered evidence, but the degree to which they contribute are becoming less and less as we understand the ways in which witness testimony is unreliable. Then again, we aren't in court. Furthermore, the manner in which testimonies are grouped together to support god is tantamount to collusion.

Also, Dawkins would never say, "It's yet another example of how atheism shuts down the mind."

7. "Theists should believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn."

Another insane appeal to popularity. The "refutation" in fact, attacks theism. It acknowledges that the only reason theists believe in gods is because it is the social norm. A lot of people do it. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a variation of Russell's Teapot, an argument Dawkins agrees with and has used himself!

8. "Religion is the major cause of war."

I'm not sure of any atheist that would make this statement. It certainly is a major cause of death, which seems to be in agreement here.

9. "The crusades and the inquisition show that Christianity is evil."

I agree with historians who say
that, had the Bible been available to the public, those events would've
never been allowed to happen.

First, who says that? Second, the Bible is available to the public now, and events like this still happen.

10. "The majority of prisoners/criminals are theists."

It's not that just a majority of prisoners/criminals are theists, but that they are disproportionately theist. If there is no correlation between theism and crime, then the population of criminals should be as theistic as the general population. It isn't, there are more theists in prison. Also, just because it may be in the best interest of a criminal to say he is a theist doesn't mean he is lying when he says he is a theist.

11. "Christians have a higher divorce rate than do atheists."

I don't know anyone that makes this argument. The rebuttal here is almost comical.

12. "Atheists do good deeds because it's the right thing to do, while
Christians do them because they want to get to heaven."

The rebuttal here assumes that atheists must subscribe to evolutionary psychology. A mistake many theists make.

13. "Can your all-powerful God create a rock that is too heavy for Him to
move?"

The statement demonstrates the inherent logical incoherence in omnipotence and, thus, the logical incoherence of any being that has omnipotence as an attribute.

Umm, some good stuff here, but some crap also. I'll get back to this post later.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 12:08:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 11:43:26 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

First, this simply isn't the case. Second, this is trivial, as I can rephrase this:

The majority of the world does not accept Christianity.

The burden is now back on you to establish it.

It's talking about theism not Christianity!
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 12:56:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 12:08:04 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/20/2011 11:43:26 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

First, this simply isn't the case. Second, this is trivial, as I can rephrase this:

The majority of the world does not accept Christianity.

The burden is now back on you to establish it.

It's talking about theism not Christianity!

I forgot, there's only one type of theism.

My bad.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 1:24:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

I only half agree with that.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 8:47:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Nononono fvck that sh!t. Just because we deviate from the norm does not mean that we have the burden of proof. Atheism is growing. So when it is the majority you guys suddenly have the bop? No, I don't think so. One cannot prove a negative. Therefore theists always have the bop.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 8:50:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 8:45:56 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:24:54 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:09:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.

Actually it would be on you to prove to that that the sun is not made of marshmallows, since the burden would be on you to persuade everyone else to believe otherwise, despite how silly their claims are.

BoP rests on the side making the affirmative claim. God cannot just be assumed to exist. If we debated whether socialpinko existed and I was Pro I would have to make a case for that.

"In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."

http://www.nizkor.org...

No you are wrong, like many of atheists. The burden of proof is on whoever states something is true, if an atheist says there is no God, then it is their job to try and convince the next men that there is no God. If a theist says there is a God and an atheist says there is no God, then the burden of proof is on both of them. Nothing should be assumed true unless proven otherwise, that is false. For example; atheism should not be assumed true, and neither should theism. It is simply a case of 'lets see what the evidences says'. If I said to you, "God exists", then that statement demands reasons to be logical and therefore true. Although I have a burden to prove to you that God exists, you also have a burden to prove that God does not exist. Since how can you say that a God that can do anything cannot exist? You can therefore only believe and thus you can only persuade another with arguments that can only convince, not prove.

Bigfoot, sense data, aliens and what not can also not be disproved, therefore those who do not believe in those things must also give evidence that they cannot exist.

She is right. The affirmative claim has to have the bop because you cannot prove a negative. Now a good debater should provide evidence against pro's claims but this is not necessary. Just suck it up and deal with the fact that you cannot prove your affirmative claim and stop trying to switch the focus.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 8:52:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 8:52:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:24:54 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/19/2011 8:09:28 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:49:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a
mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the
three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now,
about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus,
throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have
believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish
theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their
case for the deviation.".

http://www.sparklywater.com...

Lol no. The person claiming he can run a mile in a minute has the BoP because he is making a positive claim, not because it is a deviation from the norm. If everyone all of a sudden believed the Sun was made of marshmallows, the burden would not be on you to disprove it but on everyone else to substantiate their positive claim.

Actually it would be on you to prove to that that the sun is not made of marshmallows, since the burden would be on you to persuade everyone else to believe otherwise, despite how silly their claims are.

BoP rests on the side making the affirmative claim.

The external, mind-independent world doesn't exist. Persons don't exist. Minds don't exist. Composite objects don't exist. Objective moral values don't exist. I'm willing to bet you deny every single one of those propositions. Okay, you have the BoP now.

Nah I agree witchu.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 8:53:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 3:59:32 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Another thing atheist assume is that science is complete and is no, way, shape, or form wrong. To some atheist, science is their God.

No it is definitely not complete and it never will be. I will however trust it more than most things since it has no agenda when religion obviously does. Science is just trying to find truth. It does not care what the truth is.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 7:13:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 8:53:38 PM, rogue wrote:
At 10/20/2011 3:59:32 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Another thing atheist assume is that science is complete and is no, way, shape, or form wrong. To some atheist, science is their God.

No it is definitely not complete and it never will be. I will however trust it more than most things since it has no agenda when religion obviously does. Science is just trying to find truth. It does not care what the truth is.

What are you talking about? Your talking nonsense yet again. Look, if I say, "God does not exist." I am making a claim, in which I must show to be true. Prove that God does not exist in other words. Here is an analogy; you are told that there is a table in a room, you have never been into the room, then before you walk into the room, you are told there is no table. Who have the burden of proof, the person who said there was a table in the room? No, both people have the burden of proof. Why? Because there are both making equal claims, those being, a table is in the room, a table is not in the room. They are equally as probable. Thus both claims 'God does exist' and 'God does not exist' both sustain the burden of proof. You need evidence to suggest that God does not exist, thus you also have the burden of proof if you are an atheist . Or are you claiming that atheism requires no evidence? In other words, there is no evidence for atheism being correct or true. That is what you are saying, when you say, atheism does not hold to the burden of proof.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 7:26:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm.:

Sorry, but can someone prove the non-existence of something that actually does not exist? How do you give evidence of something's NON-existence?

Really think about that.

That being the case, the onus is therefore on the person who claims the existence of something. The "norm" is not a qualifier, otherwise you'd be expected to believe in Allah when you're in the middle east on the sole pretense that it's the norm.

So... this guy fails... miserably.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 12:20:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 7:13:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/20/2011 8:53:38 PM, rogue wrote:
At 10/20/2011 3:59:32 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Another thing atheist assume is that science is complete and is no, way, shape, or form wrong. To some atheist, science is their God.

No it is definitely not complete and it never will be. I will however trust it more than most things since it has no agenda when religion obviously does. Science is just trying to find truth. It does not care what the truth is.

What are you talking about? Your talking nonsense yet again. Look, if I say, "God does not exist." I am making a claim, in which I must show to be true. Prove that God does not exist in other words. Here is an analogy; you are told that there is a table in a room, you have never been into the room, then before you walk into the room, you are told there is no table. Who have the burden of proof, the person who said there was a table in the room? No, both people have the burden of proof. Why? Because there are both making equal claims, those being, a table is in the room, a table is not in the room. They are equally as probable. Thus both claims 'God does exist' and 'God does not exist' both sustain the burden of proof. You need evidence to suggest that God does not exist, thus you also have the burden of proof if you are an atheist . Or are you claiming that atheism requires no evidence? In other words, there is no evidence for atheism being correct or true. That is what you are saying, when you say, atheism does not hold to the burden of proof.

Godsands your post had nothing to do with mine. Mine made perfect sense. Explain to me what you do not get. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that God does not exist. But, like I said before, one cannot prove a negative. Therefore for an issue to be resolved one must prove the affirmative claim to be true or unanimously agree to believe in one side of the argument.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 2:21:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 7:26:09 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 10/19/2011 7:23:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
I found this document on Google, I have read all 13. Click on the link to read all 13. I have chosen one to appear directly on this thread, please read them all, they are all interesting. And apparently they are written by Richard Dawkins?

"5. "The burden of proof is on theists."
No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether
you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of
proof lies with the deviation from the norm.:

Sorry, but can someone prove the non-existence of something that actually does not exist? How do you give evidence of something's NON-existence? :
Really think about that.

That being the case, the onus is therefore on the person who claims the existence of something. The "norm" is not a qualifier, otherwise you'd be expected to believe in Allah when you're in the middle east on the sole pretense that it's the norm.

So... this guy fails... miserably.

Mate, if you can prove that something exists, you can also prove that it does not exist. You say, "How do you give evidence of something's NON-existence?" So in short you are basically saying there is no evidence for atheism, thus you cannot and have not the burden of proof. Is that right?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 2:24:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 12:20:20 AM, rogue wrote:
At 10/21/2011 7:13:18 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 10/20/2011 8:53:38 PM, rogue wrote:
At 10/20/2011 3:59:32 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Another thing atheist assume is that science is complete and is no, way, shape, or form wrong. To some atheist, science is their God.

No it is definitely not complete and it never will be. I will however trust it more than most things since it has no agenda when religion obviously does. Science is just trying to find truth. It does not care what the truth is.

What are you talking about? Your talking nonsense yet again. Look, if I say, "God does not exist." I am making a claim, in which I must show to be true. Prove that God does not exist in other words. Here is an analogy; you are told that there is a table in a room, you have never been into the room, then before you walk into the room, you are told there is no table. Who have the burden of proof, the person who said there was a table in the room? No, both people have the burden of proof. Why? Because there are both making equal claims, those being, a table is in the room, a table is not in the room. They are equally as probable. Thus both claims 'God does exist' and 'God does not exist' both sustain the burden of proof. You need evidence to suggest that God does not exist, thus you also have the burden of proof if you are an atheist . Or are you claiming that atheism requires no evidence? In other words, there is no evidence for atheism being correct or true. That is what you are saying, when you say, atheism does not hold to the burden of proof.

Godsands your post had nothing to do with mine. Mine made perfect sense. Explain to me what you do not get. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that God does not exist. But, like I said before, one cannot prove a negative. Therefore for an issue to be resolved one must prove the affirmative claim to be true or unanimously agree to believe in one side of the argument.

So there is evidence against the existence of God? Thus you have the burden of proof. For if there was no evidence what burden would there be? None. But as for yet, I have not seen any evidence against God, and neither have I seen any solid evidence for the evidence of God, out side of my personal experiences that is.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 2:45:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Mate, if you can prove that something exists, you can also prove that it does not exist. You say, "How do you give evidence of something's NON-existence?":

So then please provide empirical evidence of Zeus' non-existence. Think about it, GodSands... How can you provide evidence for something that isn't even there? Don't be daft, think it through.

So in short you are basically saying there is no evidence for atheism, thus you cannot and have not the burden of proof. Is that right?:

Atheism is a cynical position not a provable point, so, that's right. No one can disprove God or pink chipmunks that live in the core of the planet Ugzindo.

Therefore, the burden of proof is entirely on the one who posits the existence of something. The only thing atheists can do is discredit or debunk specific theistic arguments.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 3:57:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 2:45:36 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Mate, if you can prove that something exists, you can also prove that it does not exist. You say, "How do you give evidence of something's NON-existence?":

So then please provide empirical evidence of Zeus' non-existence. Think about it, GodSands... How can you provide evidence for something that isn't even there? Don't be daft, think it through.

So in short you are basically saying there is no evidence for atheism, thus you cannot and have not the burden of proof. Is that right?:

Atheism is a cynical position not a provable point, so, that's right. No one can disprove God or pink chipmunks that live in the core of the planet Ugzindo.

Therefore, the burden of proof is entirely on the one who posits the existence of something. The only thing atheists can do is discredit or debunk specific theistic arguments.

Look, you still aren't getting me, you are claiming that atheism is true, correct, right. You are not merely claiming that some theistic arguments have not evidence, you are claiming that there is no evidence for any theistic arguments, because you claim that atheistic arguments have evidence supporting them that there is no God. Therefore you have also the burden of proof to provide why atheistic arguments hold to the truth.

Look, once more, if I said that I have a new sports car in the garage, and then just before you went to see for your self, my brother said that I was lying about the sports car, then who are you to believe? Does my brother need to prove that I haven't got a new sports care, according to your logic, no. According to mine, yes he does, and like wise for me, I would also need to prove evidence that I have a new sports car. Yet my brother is, like you said, claiming a non-existence of something, the absence of a sports car.