Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

BOP Negative claims.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 3:06:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A Positive claim is an assertion that affirms something.

A Negative claim is an assertion that denies something. Usually understood as being the denial or negation or nulling of a positive claim.

A Default Position is a position assumed to be true before evidence is presented. Or stated differently, before any evidence to confirming a position as True or False is presented THIS position is assumed TRUE. That is not "Logic" That is a rule established within a system.

Universal Negative is a statement that is a negative claim. It states that no where in existence is the subject of the claim present.

Burden of Proof is the argument or evidence presented to establish a position as True. In the case of negative proofs, the BOP is to confirm a position as False.

Default Positions do not have BOP. This is because they are assumed True without evidence. They are assumed True within the declared system.

Positive Claims have BOP. Because when the veracity of the position stated is challenged, the Claiming party has to present why the claim is True.

A Negative Claims have BOP. Because when the veracity of the position stated is challenged, the Claiming party has to present why the claim is True.

"Square Circles do not exist" is a negative claim and a universal negative. It has a BOP. There are deductive arguments that can be presented when challenged. The conclusion of those arguments is that "Square Circles" are impossible to exist. This is Logic at work.

When someone makes a statement about their personal thoughts, IE: Belief, it is a default position to be assumed true. Because it can not be challenged. I am thinking about "pink elephants" right now. It is self-evident. The evidence to "prove" I am thinking of pink elephants is in the claim itself. The default position only applies to the belief, or confidence in the object of belief... not the object itself. Notice it is assumed TRUE that I am thinking of "pink elephants", the existence of non-existence of "pink elephants" is an entirely different argument.

Logic (in fact established systems of science, math, etc..), do NOT have a default position stating that "God does not exist."

When someone makes a statement about the world, reality, or the time-space the rest of us also exist in. Then that is a claim that an be challenged by others. And the result is the statement to be accepted, must be defended with BOP.

Arguments like "The Problem with Hell", "The Problem with Evil" etc... Show that their conclusions "Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist" is a Negative Claim and yet is supported by a Burden of Proof.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 8:48:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.

Oh the irony ...
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 9:03:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:48:37 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.

Oh the irony ...

I've told you before newt.

Septics don't have an ironic receptor in their bodies.

You just proved it again.

It's funny though. Keep it up.

It's time now for one of your insane spittle riddled rants about how you have been insulted and provide all the insults and stupidity that you possess as usual.
Good luck.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:59:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.

That is not what you said. You described the claim as man-made, now you describe the claim as unsupported.

Which is wrong. Men who claim "God exists" support their claims. Even Atheist admit Theist have the positive claim and must support the claim with BOP.

Opinion is defined as a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So you reject the man-made claim not based on the persuasiveness or evidence of each claim but just on the generalization that if the argument concludes in "God exists" you reject it.

Ultimately you have not made a contribution to any discussion. Just bare assertions.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 8:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 3:06:58 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
A Positive claim is an assertion that affirms something.

A Negative claim is an assertion that denies something. Usually understood as being the denial or negation or nulling of a positive claim.

A Default Position is a position assumed to be true before evidence is presented. Or stated differently, before any evidence to confirming a position as True or False is presented THIS position is assumed TRUE. That is not "Logic" That is a rule established within a system.

Universal Negative is a statement that is a negative claim. It states that no where in existence is the subject of the claim present.

Burden of Proof is the argument or evidence presented to establish a position as True. In the case of negative proofs, the BOP is to confirm a position as False.

Default Positions do not have BOP. This is because they are assumed True without evidence. They are assumed True within the declared system.

Positive Claims have BOP. Because when the veracity of the position stated is challenged, the Claiming party has to present why the claim is True.

A Negative Claims have BOP. Because when the veracity of the position stated is challenged, the Claiming party has to present why the claim is True.

"Square Circles do not exist" is a negative claim and a universal negative. It has a BOP. There are deductive arguments that can be presented when challenged. The conclusion of those arguments is that "Square Circles" are impossible to exist. This is Logic at work.

When someone makes a statement about their personal thoughts, IE: Belief, it is a default position to be assumed true. Because it can not be challenged. I am thinking about "pink elephants" right now. It is self-evident. The evidence to "prove" I am thinking of pink elephants is in the claim itself. The default position only applies to the belief, or confidence in the object of belief... not the object itself. Notice it is assumed TRUE that I am thinking of "pink elephants", the existence of non-existence of "pink elephants" is an entirely different argument.

Logic (in fact established systems of science, math, etc..), do NOT have a default position stating that "God does not exist."

When someone makes a statement about the world, reality, or the time-space the rest of us also exist in. Then that is a claim that an be challenged by others. And the result is the statement to be accepted, must be defended with BOP.

Arguments like "The Problem with Hell", "The Problem with Evil" etc... Show that their conclusions "Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist" is a Negative Claim and yet is supported by a Burden of Proof.

A person who needs BOP is one who is confused and fearful of the illusions that make up this universe. They don't know our true created existence as information in the mind of God. Information requires a change such as a vibration with a low and high pitch. Computers can't operate unless there's a change from a 0 to a 1. We wouldn't be able to see if it wasn't for light and dark, or white and black. We wouldn't know what feelings mean if we didn't experience a contrast of sadness and happiness. If everything was perfectly smooth to the touch, we wouldn't understand what rough means.

I have no fear of the illusions that I observe or the illusions that my friends have observed and tell me about them. Who am I to tell them that they didn't observe what they believe they observed?
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 8:59:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:59:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.

That is not what you said. You described the claim as man-made, now you describe the claim as unsupported.

I can't speak for bulproof, but when I say religion is man-made, I mean that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is that it's man-made. It's not a claim that I completely accept, but it's the claim that seems to be the most probable in my opinion.

My reasons:

1: Humans have created religions in the past.
2: Your religion is, redundantly, a religion.
3: It's possible that your religion was man-made.

With what I consider to be a current absence of sufficient reason to believe that any other explanation is more probable than "religion is man-made", I consider "religion is man-made" to be the most probable explanation.


Which is wrong. Men who claim "God exists" support their claims. Even Atheist admit Theist have the positive claim and must support the claim with BOP.

Opinion is defined as a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So you reject the man-made claim not based on the persuasiveness or evidence of each claim but just on the generalization that if the argument concludes in "God exists" you reject it.

Again, just my opinion, but I don't disregard arguments just because they end in the conclusion "God exists." I don't find the arguments for the existence of a god to be convincing.

Ultimately you have not made a contribution to any discussion. Just bare assertions.

I've seen you post a lot about the semantics of atheism, agnosticism, etc. and I find the semantics to be important for understanding points of view. Just to clear things up, here's a translation from how most atheists on this site define terms to how most theists on this site define terms:

Atheist definition | Theist definition

Atheist | Agnostic or atheist

Agnostic | Not the lack of a claim, but being certain of whether or not a claim regarding the existence of god(s) is true or false.

Weak atheist | Agnostic

Strong atheist | Atheist

Note: There's no single word for agnostic being translated to the theist definition because they use agnostic to mean what atheists define a weak atheist as. The best single word would probably be uncertainty.

This is what most atheists on this site mean when they use the above terms. Some theists like lifemeansevolutionisgood accept the definitions most atheists on this site use because words are only a way of quickly conveying thoughts to others, but this is for the theists that wish to use separate definitions.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 9:06:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:59:00 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:59:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.

That is not what you said. You described the claim as man-made, now you describe the claim as unsupported.

I can't speak for bulproof, but when I say religion is man-made, I mean that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is that it's man-made. It's not a claim that I completely accept, but it's the claim that seems to be the most probable in my opinion.

My reasons:

1: Humans have created religions in the past.
2: Your religion is, redundantly, a religion.
3: It's possible that your religion was man-made.

With what I consider to be a current absence of sufficient reason to believe that any other explanation is more probable than "religion is man-made", I consider "religion is man-made" to be the most probable explanation.


Religion may be man made. It does not mean God is man made.



Which is wrong. Men who claim "God exists" support their claims. Even Atheist admit Theist have the positive claim and must support the claim with BOP.

Opinion is defined as a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So you reject the man-made claim not based on the persuasiveness or evidence of each claim but just on the generalization that if the argument concludes in "God exists" you reject it.

Again, just my opinion, but I don't disregard arguments just because they end in the conclusion "God exists." I don't find the arguments for the existence of a god to be convincing.

Thanks for admitting that is an opinion of yours.


Ultimately you have not made a contribution to any discussion. Just bare assertions.

I've seen you post a lot about the semantics of atheism, agnosticism, etc. and I find the semantics to be important for understanding points of view. Just to clear things up, here's a translation from how most atheists on this site define terms to how most theists on this site define terms:

Atheist definition | Theist definition

Atheist | Agnostic or atheist

Agnostic | Not the lack of a claim, but being certain of whether or not a claim regarding the existence of god(s) is true or false.

Weak atheist | Agnostic

Strong atheist | Atheist

Note: There's no single word for agnostic being translated to the theist definition because they use agnostic to mean what atheists define a weak atheist as. The best single word would probably be uncertainty.

This is what most atheists on this site mean when they use the above terms. Some theists like lifemeansevolutionisgood accept the definitions most atheists on this site use because words are only a way of quickly conveying thoughts to others, but this is for the theists that wish to use separate definitions.

The subject of my post was not the solely the definition of Atheism. But to draw attention to the FACT that all claims about this collective reality require a justification expressed by a BOP.

I appreciate your honest post and clarification of the words you used.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 9:50:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 9:06:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 8:59:00 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:59:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.

That is not what you said. You described the claim as man-made, now you describe the claim as unsupported.

I can't speak for bulproof, but when I say religion is man-made, I mean that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is that it's man-made. It's not a claim that I completely accept, but it's the claim that seems to be the most probable in my opinion.

My reasons:

1: Humans have created religions in the past.
2: Your religion is, redundantly, a religion.
3: It's possible that your religion was man-made.

With what I consider to be a current absence of sufficient reason to believe that any other explanation is more probable than "religion is man-made", I consider "religion is man-made" to be the most probable explanation.


Religion may be man made. It does not mean God is man made.

I wasn't very clear. Instead of religion, I should have said this:

1: Humans have imagined and believed in the existence of supernatural things in the past.
2: Your god is a supernatural thing.(unless you think it's part of the natural world, which I would then call extraterrestrial life.)
3: It's possible that humans imagined and believed in the existence of your god.




Which is wrong. Men who claim "God exists" support their claims. Even Atheist admit Theist have the positive claim and must support the claim with BOP.

Opinion is defined as a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So you reject the man-made claim not based on the persuasiveness or evidence of each claim but just on the generalization that if the argument concludes in "God exists" you reject it.

Again, just my opinion, but I don't disregard arguments just because they end in the conclusion "God exists." I don't find the arguments for the existence of a god to be convincing.

Thanks for admitting that is an opinion of yours.

Your definition of opinion says "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." That doesn't exclude an opinion based on fact or knowledge, only that it's possible for an opinion to not be based on fact or knowledge.

The second definition Google gives for knowledge is "awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation."

Google's first definition of awareness is "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact."

By opinion, I meant my perception of the situation gained by experience of the situation.


Ultimately you have not made a contribution to any discussion. Just bare assertions.

I've seen you post a lot about the semantics of atheism, agnosticism, etc. and I find the semantics to be important for understanding points of view. Just to clear things up, here's a translation from how most atheists on this site define terms to how most theists on this site define terms:

Atheist definition | Theist definition

Atheist | Agnostic or atheist

Agnostic | Not the lack of a claim, but being certain of whether or not a claim regarding the existence of god(s) is true or false.

Weak atheist | Agnostic

Strong atheist | Atheist

Note: There's no single word for agnostic being translated to the theist definition because they use agnostic to mean what atheists define a weak atheist as. The best single word would probably be uncertainty.

This is what most atheists on this site mean when they use the above terms. Some theists like lifemeansevolutionisgood accept the definitions most atheists on this site use because words are only a way of quickly conveying thoughts to others, but this is for the theists that wish to use separate definitions.

The subject of my post was not the solely the definition of Atheism. But to draw attention to the FACT that all claims about this collective reality require a justification expressed by a BOP.

I appreciate your honest post and clarification of the words you used.

I agree. All claims about anything require a BOP. All I'm saying is that my specific kind of atheism, what you would call agnosticism, isn't a claim. I haven't personally experienced sufficient reason to believe that a god exists or that a god doesn't exist. I lack acceptance of both claims.

However, if there is no god, it will always be impossible to prove that there is or isn't one. If there is a god, it will always be impossible to prove that there isn't one and there isn't, for me, sufficient reason to believe there is one at this time.

I try to always be honest. Dishonesty won't move any discussion like this forward in a good direction.

You can call me agnostic if you want to. The term that describes my position doesn't matter much to me, but most of the self-identifying atheists on this site are the same kind of atheist as I am. Their position is what most theists on this site would call agnostic. I'm just tired of different definitions leading to avoidable misunderstandings.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 9:53:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:59:00 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:

Agnostic | Not the lack of a claim, but being certain of whether or not a claim regarding the existence of god(s) is true or false.

I meant to say "not being certain", not "being certain of".
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 10:05:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

Despite this claim, you have failed to do both.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 10:11:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 9:50:46 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 7/9/2014 9:06:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 8:59:00 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:59:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.

That is not what you said. You described the claim as man-made, now you describe the claim as unsupported.

I can't speak for bulproof, but when I say religion is man-made, I mean that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is that it's man-made. It's not a claim that I completely accept, but it's the claim that seems to be the most probable in my opinion.

My reasons:

1: Humans have created religions in the past.
2: Your religion is, redundantly, a religion.
3: It's possible that your religion was man-made.

With what I consider to be a current absence of sufficient reason to believe that any other explanation is more probable than "religion is man-made", I consider "religion is man-made" to be the most probable explanation.


Religion may be man made. It does not mean God is man made.

I wasn't very clear. Instead of religion, I should have said this:

1: Humans have imagined and believed in the existence of supernatural things in the past.
2: Your god is a supernatural thing.(unless you think it's part of the natural world, which I would then call extraterrestrial life.)
3: It's possible that humans imagined and believed in the existence of your god.

It is possible man imagines things before they are discovered to exist in reality.




Which is wrong. Men who claim "God exists" support their claims. Even Atheist admit Theist have the positive claim and must support the claim with BOP.

Opinion is defined as a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So you reject the man-made claim not based on the persuasiveness or evidence of each claim but just on the generalization that if the argument concludes in "God exists" you reject it.

Again, just my opinion, but I don't disregard arguments just because they end in the conclusion "God exists." I don't find the arguments for the existence of a god to be convincing.

Thanks for admitting that is an opinion of yours.

Your definition of opinion says "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." That doesn't exclude an opinion based on fact or knowledge, only that it's possible for an opinion to not be based on fact or knowledge.

The second definition Google gives for knowledge is "awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation."

Google's first definition of awareness is "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact."

By opinion, I meant my perception of the situation gained by experience of the situation.

If you began the statement, "In my experience, " Which would still be a kind of opinion. But now with the clout of a personal testimony. And that would open such claims to investigation and challenging.



Ultimately you have not made a contribution to any discussion. Just bare assertions.

I've seen you post a lot about the semantics of atheism, agnosticism, etc. and I find the semantics to be important for understanding points of view. Just to clear things up, here's a translation from how most atheists on this site define terms to how most theists on this site define terms:

Atheist definition | Theist definition

Atheist | Agnostic or atheist

Agnostic | Not the lack of a claim, but being certain of whether or not a claim regarding the existence of god(s) is true or false.

Weak atheist | Agnostic

Strong atheist | Atheist

Note: There's no single word for agnostic being translated to the theist definition because they use agnostic to mean what atheists define a weak atheist as. The best single word would probably be uncertainty.

This is what most atheists on this site mean when they use the above terms. Some theists like lifemeansevolutionisgood accept the definitions most atheists on this site use because words are only a way of quickly conveying thoughts to others, but this is for the theists that wish to use separate definitions.

The subject of my post was not the solely the definition of Atheism. But to draw attention to the FACT that all claims about this collective reality require a justification expressed by a BOP.

I appreciate your honest post and clarification of the words you used.

I agree. All claims about anything require a BOP. All I'm saying is that my specific kind of atheism, what you would call agnosticism, isn't a claim. I haven't personally experienced sufficient reason to believe that a god exists or that a god doesn't exist. I lack acceptance of both claims.

However, if there is no god, it will always be impossible to prove that there is or isn't one. If there is a god, it will always be impossible to prove that there isn't one and there isn't, for me, sufficient reason to believe there is one at this time.


But I showed with the square-circle, it is possible to show that God does not exist. It is possible to argue that God is contradictory in nature. And therefore impossible. The next step after being unable to argue such a position, would be to say God has no contradictory nature and could be possible, but to affirm or deny a non-contradictory God is insufficient to convince you.

When you say convince you, what are you arguing for? That you are the final judge and arbitrator of things you accept as real or not?

Evidence being compelling or not is subjective. Which is why Theist present "evidence" or "arguments" for God all the time, and Atheist continue to say there is Zero Evidence for God. Because the acceptance of the evidence is subjective?

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I try to always be honest. Dishonesty won't move any discussion like this forward in a good direction.

You can call me agnostic if you want to. The term that describes my position doesn't matter much to me, but most of the self-identifying atheists on this site are the same kind of atheist as I am. Their position is what most theists on this site would call agnostic. I'm just tired of different definitions leading to avoidable misunderstandings.

But the Atheist of this site often make claims and then when challenged, Shift the BOP with the justification that Atheism makes no claim.

Again I can only say what my summation arrives at "shut up or put up". If Atheist shirk a responsibility to justify their world describing statements then they are not putting up and should just shut up with opinionated meaningless utterances.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 10:22:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 10:05:22 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

Despite this claim, you have failed to do both.

Error 6#

This is a common Atheist tactic. Known as the informal logical fallacy "Shifting the Burden". Now you won't get this Atheist or any other admitting it. But it has the same pattern.

I post. The Atheist has no real rebuttal to my post.

In this case, I am challenged to present arguments for the existence of God.

However notice how the OP is in refuting Atheist rhetoric about "negative claims", "default positions" and having NO BOP for their statements. God's existence is not the focus of this post.

SO I ask does this poster have any logical refutation of the understanding I have outlined?

He resorts to deception so they may continue to argue fallaciously and claim it is logical.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 11:09:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 10:11:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I wasn't very clear. Instead of religion, I should have said this:

1: Humans have imagined and believed in the existence of supernatural things in the past.
2: Your god is a supernatural thing.(unless you think it's part of the natural world, which I would then call extraterrestrial life.)
3: It's possible that humans imagined and believed in the existence of your god.

It is possible man imagines things before they are discovered to exist in reality.

It's possible, but there are a finite amount of things man can imagine that would end up being true. There are an infinite amount of things man can imagine that would end up not being true. Again, it's of course possible, but I'd still say it's less probable.

Your definition of opinion says "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." That doesn't exclude an opinion based on fact or knowledge, only that it's possible for an opinion to not be based on fact or knowledge.

The second definition Google gives for knowledge is "awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation."

Google's first definition of awareness is "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact."

By opinion, I meant my perception of the situation gained by experience of the situation.

If you began the statement, "In my experience, " Which would still be a kind of opinion. But now with the clout of a personal testimony. And that would open such claims to investigation and challenging.


Yes, that's all I meant. In my personal experience, I haven't found the arguments convincing enough to change my position. I'm not saying that the claims are false just because I don't believe they're true. The only thing open to challenging is whether or not it's true that I haven't personally found the arguments convincing. You could hook me up to a lie detector or just ask me. It's true that I haven't found the arguments convincing.


I agree. All claims about anything require a BOP. All I'm saying is that my specific kind of atheism, what you would call agnosticism, isn't a claim. I haven't personally experienced sufficient reason to believe that a god exists or that a god doesn't exist. I lack acceptance of both claims.

However, if there is no god, it will always be impossible to prove that there is or isn't one. If there is a god, it will always be impossible to prove that there isn't one and there isn't, for me, sufficient reason to believe there is one at this time.


But I showed with the square-circle, it is possible to show that God does not exist. It is possible to argue that God is contradictory in nature. And therefore impossible. The next step after being unable to argue such a position, would be to say God has no contradictory nature and could be possible, but to affirm or deny a non-contradictory God is insufficient to convince you.

When you say convince you, what are you arguing for? That you are the final judge and arbitrator of things you accept as real or not?

Specific kinds of gods can be shown to be logically inconsistent, but I can't imagine and have never heard of any way a deistic god could ever be shown to not exist even if one doesn't exist. I can come up with something unfalsifiable right now.

There's a supernatural being on earth right now. He's impossible to detect with anything from the natural world. This includes technology, sight, hearing, touch, etc. No matter what logic is used, you'll never be able to falsify this. The general concept of a god is unfalsifiable in the same way as the being in the analogy.

Evidence being compelling or not is subjective. Which is why Theist present "evidence" or "arguments" for God all the time, and Atheist continue to say there is Zero Evidence for God. Because the acceptance of the evidence is subjective?


I agree. It's entirely subjective. When I say something doesn't convince me, I mean it subjectively. I don't mean that since it doesn't convince me, it shouldn't convince anyone. I can't control what does or doesn't convince other people, but I enjoy trying to change people's minds and I believe most people should be more skeptical than they are.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

By all truth, I'm assuming Schopenhauer means all paradigm shifting truth, since I don't imagine truths like "triangles have three sides" have ever been ridiculed or violently opposed. I agree that most paradigm shifting truths cause quite a stir, but so do potentially paradigm shifting non-truths.


I try to always be honest. Dishonesty won't move any discussion like this forward in a good direction.

You can call me agnostic if you want to. The term that describes my position doesn't matter much to me, but most of the self-identifying atheists on this site are the same kind of atheist as I am. Their position is what most theists on this site would call agnostic. I'm just tired of different definitions leading to avoidable misunderstandings.

But the Atheist of this site often make claims and then when challenged, Shift the BOP with the justification that Atheism makes no claim.

Some atheists on this site do that, but I'd say at least half of the atheists on this site either don't assert things or they attempt to back up their assertions. I'll happily point out when another atheist is wrong. I'll even happily debate against an atheist claiming that certainly no gods exist.

Again I can only say what my summation arrives at "shut up or put up". If Atheist shirk a responsibility to justify their world describing statements then they are not putting up and should just shut up with opinionated meaningless utterances.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 11:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 10:22:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 10:05:22 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

Despite this claim, you have failed to do both.

Error 6#

This is a common Atheist tactic. Known as the informal logical fallacy "Shifting the Burden". Now you won't get this Atheist or any other admitting it. But it has the same pattern.

???
What burden has been shifted? Shifted from what to what? I simply stated that you, in my experience, have neither "Put up (in an even remotely convincing manner), nor "shut up (most unfortunately)." For all of your little wagging fingers in the direction of atheists, what "tactic" are you using, here? Further, should I attribute this to all theists?

I post. The Atheist has no real rebuttal to my post.

No rebuttal was necessary. You didn't say anything that merited any kind of serious response...

In this case, I am challenged to present arguments for the existence of God.

There are none. Sorry.

However notice how the OP is in refuting Atheist rhetoric about "negative claims", "default positions" and having NO BOP for their statements. God's existence is not the focus of this post.

No, it isn't, and I didn't reply to the OP. I replied to a post where you made an inane comment that was more of an indictment of yourself, despite the fact that it was intended to "challenge" those that oppose your view.

SO I ask does this poster have any logical refutation of the understanding I have outlined?

No logical refutation is required. Your attempt to make atheists assume the burden of disproving your ridiculous gawd by misidentifying the rejection of your claim as a negative claim was never logically established, no refutation is necessary.

He resorts to deception so they may continue to argue fallaciously and claim it is logical.

Please point to the "deception" in my statement. What fallacious argument have I made? What argument have I made AT ALL? Honestly, dude... you're beginning to sound a lot like neutered...

Nice rant, though.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 11:44:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 11:09:16 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 7/9/2014 10:11:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I wasn't very clear. Instead of religion, I should have said this:

1: Humans have imagined and believed in the existence of supernatural things in the past.
2: Your god is a supernatural thing.(unless you think it's part of the natural world, which I would then call extraterrestrial life.)
3: It's possible that humans imagined and believed in the existence of your god.

It is possible man imagines things before they are discovered to exist in reality.

It's possible, but there are a finite amount of things man can imagine that would end up being true. There are an infinite amount of things man can imagine that would end up not being true. Again, it's of course possible, but I'd still say it's less probable.


I am prone to agree with you the the amount of things imaginable and does not exist, is larger then things imaginable and do exist.

If we say things imaginable, not impossible by nature, and does not exist, compared to things imagined and existing.. is an unverifiable computation. You can not know a sufficient sample to deduce the total of A (imagined, not impossible, does not exist) to compare to what can be historically fact checked B (imagined, found existing).

So though I may be inclined to agree A > B. The amount of difference can not be calculated. So your statements about this, would be a subjective opinionated statement.

Your definition of opinion says "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." That doesn't exclude an opinion based on fact or knowledge, only that it's possible for an opinion to not be based on fact or knowledge.

The second definition Google gives for knowledge is "awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation."

Google's first definition of awareness is "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact."

By opinion, I meant my perception of the situation gained by experience of the situation.

If you began the statement, "In my experience, " Which would still be a kind of opinion. But now with the clout of a personal testimony. And that would open such claims to investigation and challenging.


Yes, that's all I meant. In my personal experience, I haven't found the arguments convincing enough to change my position. I'm not saying that the claims are false just because I don't believe they're true. The only thing open to challenging is whether or not it's true that I haven't personally found the arguments convincing. You could hook me up to a lie detector or just ask me. It's true that I haven't found the arguments convincing.


I agree. All claims about anything require a BOP. All I'm saying is that my specific kind of atheism, what you would call agnosticism, isn't a claim. I haven't personally experienced sufficient reason to believe that a god exists or that a god doesn't exist. I lack acceptance of both claims.

However, if there is no god, it will always be impossible to prove that there is or isn't one. If there is a god, it will always be impossible to prove that there isn't one and there isn't, for me, sufficient reason to believe there is one at this time.


But I showed with the square-circle, it is possible to show that God does not exist. It is possible to argue that God is contradictory in nature. And therefore impossible. The next step after being unable to argue such a position, would be to say God has no contradictory nature and could be possible, but to affirm or deny a non-contradictory God is insufficient to convince you.

When you say convince you, what are you arguing for? That you are the final judge and arbitrator of things you accept as real or not?

Specific kinds of gods can be shown to be logically inconsistent, but I can't imagine and have never heard of any way a deistic god could ever be shown to not exist even if one doesn't exist. I can come up with something unfalsifiable right now.

There's a supernatural being on earth right now. He's impossible to detect with anything from the natural world. This includes technology, sight, hearing, touch, etc. No matter what logic is used, you'll never be able to falsify this. The general concept of a god is unfalsifiable in the same way as the being in the analogy.

Some modal arguments are just about possibility and not the actuality of God's existence. In which case the unfalsifiable deistic gods would satisfy. But not all arguments have a deistic god defined as something by definition "unknowable".

Some deistic gods very much can be discerned. The first Deists came to a theistic conclusion from world investigations. From inquiry. Therefore early Deists attest to a deistic god that could be falsified or knowable.


Evidence being compelling or not is subjective. Which is why Theist present "evidence" or "arguments" for God all the time, and Atheist continue to say there is Zero Evidence for God. Because the acceptance of the evidence is subjective?


I agree. It's entirely subjective. When I say something doesn't convince me, I mean it subjectively. I don't mean that since it doesn't convince me, it shouldn't convince anyone. I can't control what does or doesn't convince other people, but I enjoy trying to change people's minds and I believe most people should be more skeptical than they are.


Most things are not known with 100% certainty. There will always be room in a small corner for a skeptic to abound in.

Like most things I look for explanatory and predictive value in the positions I accept. "I don't knows, no one does" for every question of origin, for every intrinsic value of life, for every question of moral direction, is to me, Worthless.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

By all truth, I'm assuming Schopenhauer means all paradigm shifting truth, since I don't imagine truths like "triangles have three sides" have ever been ridiculed or violently opposed. I agree that most paradigm shifting truths cause quite a stir, but so do potentially paradigm shifting non-truths.



I try to always be honest. Dishonesty won't move any discussion like this forward in a good direction.

You can call me agnostic if you want to. The term that describes my position doesn't matter much to me, but most of the self-identifying atheists on this site are the same kind of atheist as I am. Their position is what most theists on this site would call agnostic. I'm just tired of different definitions leading to avoidable misunderstandings.

But the Atheist of this site often make claims and then when challenged, Shift the BOP with the justification that Atheism makes no claim.

Some atheists on this site do that, but I'd say at least half of the atheists on this site either don't assert things or they attempt to back up their assertions. I'll happily point out when another atheist is wrong. I'll even happily debate against an atheist claiming that certainly no gods exist.


Again I can only say what my summation arrives at "shut up or put up". If Atheist shirk a responsibility to justify their world describing statements then they are not putting up and should just shut up with opinionated meaningless utterances.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:59:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:33:06 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:07:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:00:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 3:20:49 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
This is why for me LOGIC can be summed up quite simply as...

"Shut up or Put up"

I do not accept the manmade claim that gods exist. I am an atheist.

Good for you. I reject your opinion. I am a Deist.

What opinion? I just reject an unsupported claim, that is a statement of fact, not opinion. You've proved otherwise.

That is not what you said. You described the claim as man-made, now you describe the claim as unsupported.

Which is wrong. Men who claim "God exists" support their claims. Even Atheist admit Theist have the positive claim and must support the claim with BOP.

Opinion is defined as a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So you reject the man-made claim not based on the persuasiveness or evidence of each claim but just on the generalization that if the argument concludes in "God exists" you reject it.

Ultimately you have not made a contribution to any discussion. Just bare assertions.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:18:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.

Trollticipation or Partictrolling?

Is this supposed to rank as an actual argument?
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:41:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:18:45 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.

Trollticipation or Partictrolling?

Is this supposed to rank as an actual argument?

I deliberately wrote it in English newt, just so you wouldn't understand.

Stand easy soldier.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:31:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:41:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:18:45 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.

Trollticipation or Partictrolling?

Is this supposed to rank as an actual argument?

I deliberately wrote it in English newt, just so you wouldn't understand.

Stand easy soldier.

Got it, still a worthless troll who thinks being wanker who pretends someone is not writing in English is either funny or productive.

Its just you demonstrating what a troll you are.

Go shopping again coward.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 6:33:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:31:00 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:41:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:18:45 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.

Trollticipation or Partictrolling?

Is this supposed to rank as an actual argument?

I deliberately wrote it in English newt, just so you wouldn't understand.

Stand easy soldier.

Got it, still a worthless troll who thinks being wanker who pretends someone is not writing in English is either funny or productive.

Its just you demonstrating what a troll you are.

Go shopping again coward.

hahahahahaha
Just can't handle it can ya.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:29:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.

You suggest because man makes the claim, the subject in question is false.

Mankind claims light travels at 299792 kilometers per second.
People claims evolution is real.
Mankind claims Pythagoras existed.

Do elephants make claims that they exist? Do Giant Squids?

OMGosh EVERY statement about anything in reality that is ever discussed is a man made claim!

You fail epically.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:58:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:29:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.

You suggest because man makes the claim, the subject in question is false.

Mankind claims light travels at 299792 kilometers per second.
People claims evolution is real.
Mankind claims Pythagoras existed.

Do elephants make claims that they exist? Do Giant Squids?

OMGosh EVERY statement about anything in reality that is ever discussed is a man made claim!

You fail epically.

And everything you just mentioned has evidence to support them.
The man made claim that gods exist has no evidence.
The claim is not the evidence mhyk.

Too bad.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:11:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:58:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:29:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.

You suggest because man makes the claim, the subject in question is false.

Mankind claims light travels at 299792 kilometers per second.
People claims evolution is real.
Mankind claims Pythagoras existed.

Do elephants make claims that they exist? Do Giant Squids?

OMGosh EVERY statement about anything in reality that is ever discussed is a man made claim!

You fail epically.

And everything you just mentioned has evidence to support them.
The man made claim that gods exist has no evidence.
The claim is not the evidence mhyk.

Too bad.

Your absolutely right troll. The claim is not true or false based on the source of the claim.

A claim is true or false based on it's content.

Stop equating content with source to justify a general denial dope.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:13:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:11:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:58:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:29:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:21:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:25:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 2:00:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
.
Man created gods, therefore their gods do not exist.

Whcih phrase works better here:

Trollitipation? Partictrolling?

The discussion about the Burden of Proof, and we get the fundamental rejection fo logic by dumping a completely unsupported claims taht essentially shouts, "I have an opinion!"

Thanks.

You also, in a discussion forum, have duty to explain what is behind your opinion.

Otherwise, its just the equivalent of jumping into a thread and saying, "I like hamsters!" Well, good for you. But if you are in a religion forum, then its incumbant upon you to say, "I believe Gods are man made, because ... something in English ..."

The failure to do this is unhelpful - Skeptical above does a good job of demonstrating how atheists CAN contribute to a discussion and generate consesnus about the basic rules of of a civil exchange.

Option A:
Both sides can state opinions, and offer an intelligent exchange about the premises behind the opinion.

Option B:
One side can do that, and the other side can stand there obstinantely denying it has to list any premises, while screaming about evidence, and demanding that you accept the arguments they are not even making - how you convince anyone by avoiding option A remains an utter mystery to me.

It's really quite simple. Only man has ever made the claim that gods exist. Ergo man created the gods they claim exist. No god has ever claimed it exists.

You suggest because man makes the claim, the subject in question is false.

Mankind claims light travels at 299792 kilometers per second.
People claims evolution is real.
Mankind claims Pythagoras existed.

Do elephants make claims that they exist? Do Giant Squids?

OMGosh EVERY statement about anything in reality that is ever discussed is a man made claim!

You fail epically.

And everything you just mentioned has evidence to support them.
The man made claim that gods exist has no evidence.
The claim is not the evidence mhyk.

Too bad.

Your absolutely right troll. The claim is not true or false based on the source of the claim.

A claim is true or false based on it's content.

Stop equating content with source to justify a general denial dope.
You finally admit that your gods don't exist.
Good for you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin