Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Burden Of Proof

Willows
Posts: 11,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 7:23:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Of course, There is no such thing as a burden of proof for the refutal of a positive assertion. The positive assertion being the existence of God. That is, Above and beyond the norm there is er, Well, Um "something" that we can't see, Hear or feel and was established by er, Well, We don't know but, Hey God just exists anyway so don't argue, God just exists and you can't disprove it, And like a whole lot of other (nitwit) people believe the same thing so God must be true, Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah!

But now God lovers have wised up to the whole burden of proof thing and their usual pre-school reasoning and come out with:
"Oh well, We believe that God is our master and those inferior, Heathen atheists don't know what it's like to experience God.
Can't touch that one and of course, We avoid the burden of proof. Whew, Got out of that one. "

Well, We here at the Association for Normal Atheist Lambasters (ANAL) know exactly how theists really do feel. Really, Because the simple equation works thus:
Belief plus Experience minus proof equals delusion.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 10:38:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Of course, There is no such thing as a burden of proof for the refutal of a positive assertion. The positive assertion being the existence of God. That is, Above and beyond the norm there is er, Well, Um "something" that we can't see, Hear or feel and was established by er, Well, We don't know but, Hey God just exists anyway so don't argue, God just exists and you can't disprove it, And like a whole lot of other (nitwit) people believe the same thing so God must be true, Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah!

But now God lovers have wised up to the whole burden of proof thing and their usual pre-school reasoning and come out with:
"Oh well, We believe that God is our master and those inferior, Heathen atheists don't know what it's like to experience God.
Can't touch that one and of course, We avoid the burden of proof. Whew, Got out of that one. "

Well, We here at the Association for Normal Atheist Lambasters (ANAL) know exactly how theists really do feel. Really, Because the simple equation works thus:
Belief plus Experience minus proof equals delusion.


Willow, It is time for you to grow up? You are getting all Nancy about the fact that your entire argument is shot down. If the shoe was on the other foot, You would be saying - hey boys, Just suck it up. You, Willow, Are such a dweeb.

The fact is - trying to prove or to disprove God is a waste of time. But you keep wanting people to waste their time - and in the meantime you waste your own. Still I suppose it is your own life and time you are wasting. You know it is still not to late for you.
Willows
Posts: 11,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 1:13:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
Of course, There is no such thing as a burden of proof for the refutal of a positive assertion. The positive assertion being the existence of God. That is, Above and beyond the norm there is er, Well, Um "something" that we can't see, Hear or feel and was established by er, Well, We don't know but, Hey God just exists anyway so don't argue, God just exists and you can't disprove it, And like a whole lot of other (nitwit) people believe the same thing so God must be true, Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah!

But now God lovers have wised up to the whole burden of proof thing and their usual pre-school reasoning and come out with:
"Oh well, We believe that God is our master and those inferior, Heathen atheists don't know what it's like to experience God.
Can't touch that one and of course, We avoid the burden of proof. Whew, Got out of that one. "

Well, We here at the Association for Normal Atheist Lambasters (ANAL) know exactly how theists really do feel. Really, Because the simple equation works thus:
Belief plus Experience minus proof equals delusion.


Willow, It is time for you to grow up? You are getting all Nancy about the fact that your entire argument is shot down. If the shoe was on the other foot, You would be saying - hey boys, Just suck it up. You, Willow, Are such a dweeb.

The fact is - trying to prove or to disprove God is a waste of time. But you keep wanting people to waste their time - and in the meantime you waste your own. Still I suppose it is your own life and time you are wasting. You know it is still not to late for you.

That's right, It is a waste of time since there is no God in existence to prove in the first place and trying to put the stupid notion across that not disproving gives credence to such an absurd belief is totally laughable.
There is no such thing as God and anyone who invents all sorts of stories to circumvent the fact is lying, Deluded or both.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 10:37:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
That's right, It is a waste of time since there is no God in existence to prove in the first place and trying to put the stupid notion across that not disproving gives credence to such an absurd belief is totally laughable.
There is no such thing as God and anyone who invents all sorts of stories to circumvent the fact is lying, Deluded or both.


Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position. It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

I agree it is absurd trying to argue that God does not exist - it is like saying - cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good luck with that.
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 4:41:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:

That's right, It is a waste of time since there is no God in existence to prove in the first place and trying to put the stupid notion across that not disproving gives credence to such an absurd belief is totally laughable.
There is no such thing as God and anyone who invents all sorts of stories to circumvent the fact is lying, Deluded or both.


Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position. It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

I agree it is absurd trying to argue that God does not exist - it is like saying - cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good luck with that.

But. . . . . But. . . . . . How can God exist if willowed doesn't believe He exists? How?

What more does the genius have to show as evidence for his claim than his simple incredulity? You are being unreasonable TS.

Willowed has said God doesn't exist. What more can he do? Isn't that enough?
Willows
Posts: 11,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 10:22:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:

That's right, It is a waste of time since there is no God in existence to prove in the first place and trying to put the stupid notion across that not disproving gives credence to such an absurd belief is totally laughable.
There is no such thing as God and anyone who invents all sorts of stories to circumvent the fact is lying, Deluded or both.


Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position. It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

I agree it is absurd trying to argue that God does not exist - it is like saying - cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good luck with that.

But. . . . . But. . . . . . How can God exist if willowed doesn't believe He exists? How?

What more does the genius have to show as evidence for his claim than his simple incredulity? You are being unreasonable TS.

Willowed has said God doesn't exist. What more can he do? Isn't that enough?

And I have always properly backed up every claim I have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 2:39:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:

That's right, It is a waste of time since there is no God in existence to prove in the first place and trying to put the stupid notion across that not disproving gives credence to such an absurd belief is totally laughable.
There is no such thing as God and anyone who invents all sorts of stories to circumvent the fact is lying, Deluded or both.


Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position. It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

I agree it is absurd trying to argue that God does not exist - it is like saying - cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good luck with that.

But. . . . . But. . . . . . How can God exist if willowed doesn't believe He exists? How?

What more does the genius have to show as evidence for his claim than his simple incredulity? You are being unreasonable TS.

Willowed has said God doesn't exist. What more can he do? Isn't that enough?

And I have always properly backed up every claim I have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence.

Darn! I missed the back up again! For some reason, I always get in only as the genius is claiming he has backed up his arguments, I never see the actual back ups. Darn my luck.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.

Do you always seem to miss those too?

Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence?

You make dozens of zero reply posts so a citation should of your own post should be easy.
Willows
Posts: 11,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2019 5:36:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:
Tradesecret wrote:

That's right, It is a waste of time since there is no God in existence to prove in the first place and trying to put the stupid notion across that not disproving gives credence to such an absurd belief is totally laughable.
There is no such thing as God and anyone who invents all sorts of stories to circumvent the fact is lying, Deluded or both.


Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position. It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

I agree it is absurd trying to argue that God does not exist - it is like saying - cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good luck with that.

But. . . . . But. . . . . . How can God exist if willowed doesn't believe He exists? How?

What more does the genius have to show as evidence for his claim than his simple incredulity? You are being unreasonable TS.

Willowed has said God doesn't exist. What more can he do? Isn't that enough?

And I have always properly backed up every claim I have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence.

Darn! I missed the back up again! For some reason, I always get in only as the genius is claiming he has backed up his arguments, I never see the actual back ups. Darn my luck.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.

Do you always seem to miss those too?

Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence?

You make dozens of zero reply posts so a citation should of your own post should be easy.
That"s right. And I cite every post that I have made.
Similarly, I can cite every post that you have made as having no valid proof or reasoning as to the existence of your imaginary friend.
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2019 7:53:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:

That's right, It is a waste of time since there is no God in existence to prove in the first place and trying to put the stupid notion across that not disproving gives credence to such an absurd belief is totally laughable.
There is no such thing as God and anyone who invents all sorts of stories to circumvent the fact is lying, Deluded or both.


Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position. It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

I agree it is absurd trying to argue that God does not exist - it is like saying - cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good luck with that.

But. . . . . But. . . . . . How can God exist if willowed doesn't believe He exists? How?

What more does the genius have to show as evidence for his claim than his simple incredulity? You are being unreasonable TS.

Willowed has said God doesn't exist. What more can he do? Isn't that enough?

And I have always properly backed up every claim I have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence.

Darn! I missed the back up again! For some reason, I always get in only as the genius is claiming he has backed up his arguments, I never see the actual back ups. Darn my luck.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.

Do you always seem to miss those too?

Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence?

You make dozens of zero reply posts so a citation should of your own post should be easy.

That"s right.

I know. I'm the one telling you.

And I cite every post that I have made.

Darn! I missed the citation again! For some reason, I always get in only as the genius is claiming he has cited his arguments, I never see the actual citations. Darn my luck.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.

Do you always seem to miss those too?

Similarly, I can cite every post that you have made as having no valid proof or reasoning as to the existence of your imaginary friend.

Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence?

You make dozens of zero reply posts so a citation of your own post should be easy.

Did I miss the citation again Gentle Readers? How come everyone can see them but me?

Lol.
Willows
Posts: 11,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2019 8:00:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:

That's right, It is a waste of time since there is no God in existence to prove in the first place and trying to put the stupid notion across that not disproving gives credence to such an absurd belief is totally laughable.
There is no such thing as God and anyone who invents all sorts of stories to circumvent the fact is lying, Deluded or both.


Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position. It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

I agree it is absurd trying to argue that God does not exist - it is like saying - cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good luck with that.

But. . . . . But. . . . . . How can God exist if willowed doesn't believe He exists? How?

What more does the genius have to show as evidence for his claim than his simple incredulity? You are being unreasonable TS.

Willowed has said God doesn't exist. What more can he do? Isn't that enough?

And I have always properly backed up every claim I have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence.

Darn! I missed the back up again! For some reason, I always get in only as the genius is claiming he has backed up his arguments, I never see the actual back ups. Darn my luck.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.

Do you always seem to miss those too?

Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence?

You make dozens of zero reply posts so a citation should of your own post should be easy.

That"s right.

I know. I'm the one telling you.

And I cite every post that I have made.

Darn! I missed the citation again! For some reason, I always get in only as the genius is claiming he has cited his arguments, I never see the actual citations. Darn my luck.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.

Do you always seem to miss those too?

Similarly, I can cite every post that you have made as having no valid proof or reasoning as to the existence of your imaginary friend.

Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence?

You make dozens of zero reply posts so a citation of your own post should be easy.

Did I miss the citation again Gentle Readers? How come everyone can see them but me?

Lol.

Yeah well, I find this a common affliction with God lovers and it affects them in two ways.

1) Some can't see the wood for the trees.

2) Others (and I dare say, Most) do not want to see the wood for the trees, Even if you shoved a Californian Redwood up their clackers.
tkubok
Posts: 5,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 4:31:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position.

I think you're misunderstanding the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof".

And in case you didnt realize it, Saying that it is the default position because a lot of people have or currently does believe it, Is no different than saying the number one fastest growing religion is Islam, And therefore Islam is the default position for humanity. Or that, In a hundred, A thousand years, If or when Islam becomes the majority religion, That therefore Islam is the default position and the burden of proof rests on christianity.

That's not how burden of proof works, And we actually named a logical fallacy after it, Too.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

I guess the keyword here is "held". As in, Past tense.

Yes, In the past, When people were uneducated, And didnt understand skepticism, Reason, Logic, And how to differentiate true claims from false ones, A lot of people used to hold a lot of backwards beliefs. And their lack of understanding of such concepts were why the beliefs began in the first place.

Why you would use this as an argument, Just blows my mind. And not in a good way.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

Not really, No. From the beginning of time(in terms of mankind), People have been making wild claims and stories. And there have always been people who heard the story, And said, "I don't believe you". This isnt the film, "the invention of lying". People have been able to make stuff up and decieve others from the very beginning.

Atheists are just the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every street corner preacher they come across.
Harikrish
Posts: 30,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 4:50:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
tkubok wrote:
Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position.

I think you're misunderstanding the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof".

And in case you didnt realize it, Saying that it is the default position because a lot of people have or currently does believe it, Is no different than saying the number one fastest growing religion is Islam, And therefore Islam is the default position for humanity. Or that, In a hundred, A thousand years, If or when Islam becomes the majority religion, That therefore Islam is the default position and the burden of proof rests on christianity.

That's not how burden of proof works, And we actually named a logical fallacy after it, Too.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.


I guess the keyword here is "held". As in, Past tense.

Yes, In the past, When people were uneducated, And didnt understand skepticism, Reason, Logic, And how to differentiate true claims from false ones, A lot of people used to hold a lot of backwards beliefs. And their lack of understanding of such concepts were why the beliefs began in the first place.

Why you would use this as an argument, Just blows my mind. And not in a good way.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

Not really, No. From the beginning of time(in terms of mankind), People have been making wild claims and stories. And there have always been people who heard the story, And said, "I don't believe you". This isnt the film, "the invention of lying". People have been able to make stuff up and decieve others from the very beginning.

Atheists are just the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every street corner preacher they come across.

The Christian dilemma is even more ironic.

If God is omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and the universe is 14 billion years old. Why are we still trying to prove logically that God exists. P1, P2, P3 etc when evidence of God's should be so overwhelming that it would be impossible to ignore or refute? Yet all we get from Theists is the same logical arguments

P1. God does not exist, Objective moral values do not exist.

P2. Objective moral values do exist.

P3. Therefore, God exists.

It appears from the logical argument the evidence for objective morality is higher than the evidence for God and, We can at best only deduce from objective morality the probability of God's existence. That is how the Christians have reduced God to an absurd logical argument by appealing to the atheists to accept morality as being objective.
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 6:21:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:

I agree it is absurd trying to argue that God does not exist - it is like saying - cutting off your nose to spite your face. Good luck with that.

But. . . But. . . How can God exist if willowed doesn't believe He exists? How?

What more does the genius have to show as evidence for his claim than his simple incredulity? You are being unreasonable TS.

Willowed has said God doesn't exist. What more can he do? Isn't that enough?

And I have always properly backed up every claim I have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence.

Darn! I missed the back up again! For some reason, I always get in only as the genius is claiming he has backed up his arguments, I never see the actual back ups. Darn my luck.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.

Do you always seem to miss those too?

Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence?

You make dozens of zero reply posts so a citation should of your own post should be easy.

That"s right.

I know. I'm the one telling you.

And I cite every post that I have made.

Darn! I missed the citation again! For some reason, I always get in only as the genius is claiming he has cited his arguments, I never see the actual citations. Darn my luck.

Yet not one person, Not one, Ever since supernatural lunacy preoccupied the stupid and manipulative, Has ever come up with one viable explanation supporting such a far-fetched, Absurd notion.

Do you always seem to miss those too?

Similarly, I can cite every post that you have made as having no valid proof or reasoning as to the existence of your imaginary friend.

Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence?

You make dozens of zero reply posts so a citation of your own post should be easy.

Did I miss the citation again Gentle Readers? How come everyone can see them but me?

Lol.

Yeah well, I find this a common affliction with God lovers and it affects them in two ways.

1) Some can't see the wood for the trees.

2) Others (and I dare say, Most) do not want to see the wood for the trees, Even if you shoved a Californian Redwood up their clackers.

OK, Along with you simply taking pot shots at God, Could you cite a post where you have given a properly backed up claim you have made regarding the non-existence of God with sound reasoning and evidence? Or at least tell me if you won't.

I'm sure you don't want people to see me ask you again.
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 6:57:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
tkubok wrote:

Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position.

I think you're misunderstanding the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof".

And in case you didnt realize it, Saying that it is the default position because a lot of people have or currently does believe it, Is no different than saying the number one fastest growing religion is Islam, And therefore Islam is the default position for humanity.

There is so much wrong with your post. First, Islam is not the fastest growing religion. Thus, Calling it the default because it's the fastest growing religion would be factually incorrect. Islam has the fastest rate of growth, But Christianity is still adding more people.

And you did not tell us the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof". What is this difference?

Or that, In a hundred, A thousand years, If or when Islam becomes the majority religion, That therefore Islam is the default position and the burden of proof rests on christianity.

That's not how burden of proof works, And we actually named a logical fallacy after it, Too.

That is not what TS said either. But you needed to link your fallacy claim. I get it.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Thank you. In this case, The person claiming God does not exist.

It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

I guess the keyword here is "held". As in, Past tense.

Yes, In the past, When people were uneducated, And didnt understand skepticism, Reason, Logic, And how to differentiate true claims from false ones, A lot of people used to hold a lot of backwards beliefs.

Actually, Tests have shown that people of the past were better at reasoning, And more familiar with the classic philosophers. You throw claims around without one shred of support, You seem to simply expect us to believe you.

And their lack of understanding of such concepts were why the beliefs began in the first place.

Do you have any support for this claim? How do you explain new religions in our more evolved, Educated times?

Why you would use this as an argument, Just blows my mind. And not in a good way.

He did not use that argument. You did. And how or whether it blows your mind is immaterial to the question at hand.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

Not really, No. From the beginning of time(in terms of mankind), People have been making wild claims and stories. And there have always been people who heard the story, And said, "I don't believe you". This isnt the film, "the invention of lying". People have been able to make stuff up and decieve others from the very beginning.

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced. Are you familiar with his uni-topic posts?

Atheists are just the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every street corner preacher they come across.

In our experience, Atheists are the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every DDO religion board poster they seek out and harass.

You were not minding your business and just happened to come across a preacher on a neutral street corner. You entered a religion board, Looking for people you could preach to. The theist is the one who was minding his own business and meets you on a religion board corner, And is the one saying to you, "I don't believe you. "

Your crooked perception may be the reason you deny having the BOP.
Willows
Posts: 11,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 7:36:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
tkubok wrote:

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced.

Wrong.
In the world of Willows, Such people would be humanely kept in cages and would be regularly fed. Carers would also let them out once a day. Mind you, Only with a chain and muzzle.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 9:06:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willow, I don't have to prove God exists. This is what I keep telling you. Not only is the default position of humanity, Putting the burden of proof squarely on those who don't believe in God to prove their position, But it is the common sense position. It is the logical position.

I think you're misunderstanding the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof".

No I don't think so. I don't think that majority rules necessarily makes something a default position - but it certainly provides a normal position. Atheism is a non-normal starting point.

And in case you didnt realize it, Saying that it is the default position because a lot of people have or currently does believe it, Is no different than saying the number one fastest growing religion is Islam, And therefore Islam is the default position for humanity. Or that, In a hundred, A thousand years, If or when Islam becomes the majority religion, That therefore Islam is the default position and the burden of proof rests on christianity.

Again, I am not suggesting that numbers are anything more than what they are. There are more people in this world who believe in God than there are who do not. For these people it is self evident that God exists. The fact that this number far outweighs those who call themselves atheists is a problem for them - not for the theists.

That's not how burden of proof works, And we actually named a logical fallacy after it, Too.

Ok. Who is we? And what is this fallacy called?

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Yes, I already said that. I used the picture of a court room scene - the person who is the application or the prosecution - the one bringing the accusation is the one who begins with the burden of proof.

It is the atheist - who asserts there is no god. This is their claim. It is not my claim. I do not have to prove it. The atheist makes this claim - because billions of people throughout history do believe in God for many and varied reasons - and the atheist dislikes it. They disagree with it. They say there is no evidence to support god. And that is fine - that is their position. Yet - it is their assertion against the default position.

It is the position that makes sense to more people than it does not. It is the position that the writer's of Australia's constitution held too. It is the position that the legal institutions of the West held too. It is the position that 99% of the father's of science held too. It is the position that 99% of humanity has held too.

I guess the keyword here is "held". As in, Past tense.

Held is a good word. But so what? Things have not changed to the extent yet. The aussie constitution still invokes God. The courts still have people swear on a bible or religious book if they choose too. In the court I attend - this is still probably about 80% of the population.

Yes, In the past, When people were uneducated, And didnt understand skepticism, Reason, Logic, And how to differentiate true claims from false ones, A lot of people used to hold a lot of backwards beliefs. And their lack of understanding of such concepts were why the beliefs began in the first place.

That is just a silly and prejudiced statement. People today believe in God and are educated as well. Reason and logic is part of parcel of believing in God - because there are so many wacko in and out of the church. Many scientists believe in God - many lawyers believe in God. In Australia it is the lower classes and uneducated which are leading the charge against religion.

Why you would use this as an argument, Just blows my mind. And not in a good way.

I don't care what it does to your mind.

Now it might be convenient to you to hold a different position - and that well, Nice for you. And I don't begrudge you having another position - it is your right after all - but only because my position is the default position. If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet.

Not really, No. From the beginning of time(in terms of mankind), People have been making wild claims and stories. And there have always been people who heard the story, And said, "I don't believe you". This isnt the film, "the invention of lying". People have been able to make stuff up and decieve others from the very beginning.


so what? You are simply stating your opinion and prejudices. It does not change the fact that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim that is against the status quo.

Atheists are just the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every street corner preacher they come across.

there are many atheists of differing colours. So what?
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 9:17:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
tkubok wrote:

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced.

Wrong.
In the world of Willows, Such people would be humanely kept in cages and would be regularly fed. Carers would also let them out once a day. Mind you, Only with a chain and muzzle.

OK. Keeping them in cages under chains and muzzles would not silence them brutally. You don't know what a muzzle is do you?

tubrok, Still think TS was wrong when he said,

"If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet"?
Willows
Posts: 11,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 10:44:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
ethang5 wrote:
tkubok wrote:

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced.

Wrong.
In the world of Willows, Such people would be humanely kept in cages and would be regularly fed. Carers would also let them out once a day. Mind you, Only with a chain and muzzle.

OK. Keeping them in cages under chains and muzzles would not silence them brutally. You don't know what a muzzle is do you?

tubrok, Still think TS was wrong when he said,

"If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet"?

And Tradie is one of the most muddled idiots in the history of mankind. He is the sort of person who would wear his undies inside out and back-to-front over his trousers which are inside out and back to front. And he would swear that is the default way of dressing and that Yves St. Laurent got it wrong.

Nevertheless, It still has nothing to do with the presence of God.
The introduction of the presence of something (in this case, God) is over and above nothing, The default position. Full stop, End of story.

Making up all sorts axioms is simply being stupid but then anyone in such a position has no other choice when trying to justify such an absurdly improbable notion.
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 11:10:28 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
tkubok wrote:

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced.

Wrong.
In the world of Willows, Such people would be humanely kept in cages and would be regularly fed. Carers would also let them out once a day. Mind you, Only with a chain and muzzle.

OK. Keeping them in cages under chains and muzzles would not silence them brutally. You don't know what a muzzle is do you?

tubrok, Still think TS was wrong when he said,

"If your position was the default position - the freedom of people having different positions would not have evolved yet. It would not even have been conceived yet"?

And Tradie is one of the most muddled idiots in the history of mankind. He is the sort of person who would wear his undies inside out and back-to-front over his trousers which are inside out and back to front. And he would swear that is the default way of dressing and that Yves St. Laurent got it wrong.

Nevertheless, It still has nothing to do with the presence of God.
The introduction of the presence of something (in this case, God) is over and above nothing, The default position. Full stop, End of story.

Making up all sorts axioms is simply being stupid but then anyone in such a position has no other choice when trying to justify such an absurdly improbable notion.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Thank you. In this case, The person claiming God does not exist is making the claim and has the BOP.

You also could not cite any of your posts that you claim are well researched and reasonable. Telling.
tkubok
Posts: 5,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 9:48:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
No I don't think so. I don't think that majority rules necessarily makes something a default position - but it certainly provides a normal position. Atheism is a non-normal starting point.

Sure, If you want to use that definition, Then yes. And when I travel to China, My views on freedom of speech and liberty and stuff like that, Becomes non-normal too.

Again, I am not suggesting that numbers are anything more than what they are. There are more people in this world who believe in God than there are who do not. For these people it is self evident that God exists. The fact that this number far outweighs those who call themselves atheists is a problem for them - not for the theists.

Its not a problem for us atheists, When were discussing things like Burden of proof and evidence.

Ok. Who is we? And what is this fallacy called?

We, As in the society we live in, And the fallacy is called Argument Ad populum.

Yes, I already said that. I used the picture of a court room scene - the person who is the application or the prosecution - the one bringing the accusation is the one who begins with the burden of proof.

It is the atheist - who asserts there is no god. This is their claim. It is not my claim. I do not have to prove it. The atheist makes this claim - because billions of people throughout history do believe in God for many and varied reasons - and the atheist dislikes it. They disagree with it. They say there is no evidence to support god. And that is fine - that is their position. Yet - it is their assertion against the default position.

Not at all, And I read part of that discussion between you and Willow. Ill split this into two parts.

Firstly, I am not sure which country you are from, But in most of the first world countries, The court system is set up based on the presumption of innocence, And that you are innocent until proven guilty. We have it set up like this, Because we understand that an innocent man being convicted of a crime is far worse than a guilty man being let free. Therefore, In order to have the least amount of innocent people in jail or prosecuted for their crimes, Our system is based on this premise. The default position is always innocence, Or Not guilty.

With regards to beliefs and whether the belief or claim is true, Or most likely true, The default position is that it is not true until there is evidence or reason to demonstrate that it is. This is the same with existential claims as well. We consider that things do not exist, Until there is evidence to demonstrate their existance. This system is built on the premise of holding the most amount of true beliefs, And the least amount of false beliefs possible.

Now, Onto the second part.

Im not sure what Willow believes or what claims he has made, I havent gone back and read every single one of his posts. However, When atheists assert there is no God, Or God doesnt exist, Its no different from when anyone else asserts that there are no lepricons or faeries. Most, If not all people who are alive today, Atleast as adults and in civilized countries, Do not believe in the existence of things like Faeries. Maybe there are a couple people who believe, But its safe to say that almost everyone does not. And asking people on the street, Its safe to say that 100% of them will be comfortable with saying "Faeries don't exist".

Well, This is a claim, And yet we do not recognize the need for a burden of proof, For them to prove that faeries do not exist. After all, It would be almost impossible to prove that. It would require an amount of knowledge akin to omniscience.

And just like how most people would be comfortable with saying "There are no faeries", Atheists say "There is no God".

If you want to be technical, Then sure, Im certain the atheist will retract that claim and simply state "I don't believe that God exists". And you can yell at the person who says "There is no faeries" by saying "Yeah, But wheres the proof! How do you know! " But thats where the default position I was talking about in the first part, Comes in. We don't press people for saying there are no faeries, Because we understand this.

So, No. Thats why the burden of proof lies on theists making the claim.

That is just a silly and prejudiced statement. People today believe in God and are educated as well. Reason and logic is part of parcel of believing in God - because there are so many wacko in and out of the church. Many scientists believe in God - many lawyers believe in God.

I never said that you can't be well educated and believe in God. But 500, 1000 years ago, When things like a public, Mandatory school system and higher education available to almost everyone, And the internet or library with its vast knowledge open to everyone didnt exist, It was easier for people to stay religious, Without questioning their beliefs.

In Australia it is the lower classes and uneducated which are leading the charge against religion.

Is there a citation that you have, For this claim?

there are many atheists of differing colours. So what?

So, There have always been people who didnt accept or did not believe someone elses claims, No matter how mainstream, Or "Status quo" it was. And this was true, Even when there was no "freedom" to believe in anything else, When it was "believe in this or suffer the consequences". The position of "I do not accept your claims until you have convinced me" has always been the default position.
tkubok
Posts: 5,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2019 10:11:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
There is so much wrong with your post. First, Islam is not the fastest growing religion. Thus, Calling it the default because it's the fastest growing religion would be factually incorrect. Islam has the fastest rate of growth, But Christianity is still adding more people.

Pewresearch why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

Title reads: "Why muslims are the worlds fastest growing religious group".

But maybe you could extrapolate on what you mean by "Not the fastest growing religion", While being "the fastest rate of growth", And the distinction you are trying to put between the two sentences.


And you did not tell us the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof". What is this difference?

One is simply a metric as to the percentage of people who believe a claim is true, And the other is whether or not, By our generally agreed upon standard, A specific side has a burden of proof.

That is not what TS said either. But you needed to link your fallacy claim. I get it.

If his claim is that the burden of proof is on Atheists because the default position is that most people in history have believed in God, Then yes, That is a fallacy.

Thank you. In this case, The person claiming God does not exist.

I never claimed God did not exist. Looks like I dodged a bullet there!

Of course, The same usually can't be said of a theist, Now, Can it?

Actually, Tests have shown that people of the past were better at reasoning, And more familiar with the classic philosophers. You throw claims around without one shred of support, You seem to simply expect us to believe you.

How far back are you talking about, And are you also talking about the scholars themselves, Or the general public?

Do you have any support for this claim? How do you explain new religions in our more evolved, Educated times?

Well, Its based on our knowledge of how religions are formed, Like Mormonism or Islam. Its quite laughable for you or me, When we hear about how Mormonism began, And what happened with Joseph Smith and the Seer stone nonsense. They didnt apply critical thinking, Which is why they believed and followed him, Even with the incredible inconsistencies and ridiculous excuses he made regarding the revelations.

And what do you mean by "How do you explain new religions"? The fact that the average IQ score have increased, Doesnt mean that there aren't people on the lower rung of the bell curve. The fact that we are better educated, Doesnt mean we aren't gullible, Or be raised in a society that promotes being gullible to specific types of beliefs.

He did not use that argument. You did. And how or whether it blows your mind is immaterial to the question at hand.

He did. But it was just an off-hand observation from me. I don't expect you to care about me.

But I do care about you. I care about everyone. Just putting that on the record.

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced. Are you familiar with his uni-topic posts?


Yes, Quite a lot of them were. And no, I am not familiar with his uni-topic post. Could you please link?


In our experience, Atheists are the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every DDO religion board poster

Yes, That is basically the gist of what I said. Im glad your experience is matching up with my words.

they seek out and harass.

Sorry if you didnt know this, But this website is called "Debate dot org". Its a place where people come to discuss and debate different things, With different viewpoints.

If someone doesnt want people to post replies to them, Or, Uh, "Harass", As you put it, Maybe they should stop posting on a public forum. Or go to a forums where only like-minded people are allowed, And they can all discuss how amazing and great the bible is.

You were not minding your business and just happened to come across a preacher on a neutral street corner. You entered a religion board, Looking for people you could preach to. The theist is the one who was minding his own business and meets you on a religion board corner, And is the one saying to you, "I don't believe you. "

Your crooked perception may be the reason you deny having the BOP.

What?

First off, I never said I was minidng my own business and just happened to come across you guys preaching. I completely accept the fact that I came here on this board to have a discussion. You know, The whole "Debate" part in "Debate dot org". I thought that was obvious.

Secondly, Again, what? We wouldnt know who someone was, Or if they even existed, Unless they had registered, And then posted, Or had been in some way active in this board beyond simply looking through the threads.

And yes, If you start posting, Or start having debates and discussions, Then youre no longer minidng your own business anymore, Youre actively involved in a website that is built around the premise of discussion and debate.

What are you even referring to, When you say that I have a crooked perception? Who are all the actual people on the streets, Preaching to actual people who are minding their own business? Who are all the actual people going door to door, Ringing doorbells to spread the word, To people who are minding their own business?
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2019 1:30:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
tkubok wrote:

There is so much wrong with your post. First, Islam is not the fastest growing religion. Thus, Calling it the default because it's the fastest growing religion would be factually incorrect. Islam has the fastest rate of growth, But Christianity is still adding more people.

Pewresearch why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

Title reads: "Why muslims are the worlds fastest growing religious group".

But maybe you could extrapolate on what you mean by "Not the fastest growing religion", While being "the fastest rate of growth", And the distinction you are trying to put between the two sentences.

If a religion had only two believers, And increased that number to 4 in one year, It's rate of growth would 50%, Higher than any religion on earth, But would have added only 2 people.

A religion that had 100 people and added 10 believers in one year, Would have a rate of growth of only 10%, 5 times less than than the religion that added only 2 people.

When people say "fastest growing", Do they mean the rate, Or the actual number of people? Islam is not adding as many people as Christianity. In terms of new believers, Christianity beats any religion.

And you did not tell us the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof". What is this difference?

One is simply a metric as to the percentage of people who believe a claim is true, And the other is whether or not, By our generally agreed upon standard, A specific side has a burden of proof.

Your answer here is irrational.

That is not what TS said either. But you needed to link your fallacy claim. I get it.

If his claim is that the burden of proof is on Atheists because the default position is that most people in history have believed in God, Then yes, That is a fallacy.

His claim is that the person making the claim has the BoP, Theist or atheist.

I never claimed God did not exist. Looks like I dodged a bullet there!

The bullet will wait until you do make that claim.

Of course, The same usually can't be said of a theist, Now, Can it?

If a theist makes a claim, He has the BoP.

Actually, Tests have shown that people of the past were better at reasoning, And more familiar with the classic philosophers. You throw claims around without one shred of support, You seem to simply expect us to believe you.

How far back are you talking about, . . . . .

+500 years.

And are you also talking about the scholars themselves, Or the general public?

Gen pop.

Do you have any support for this claim? How do you explain new religions in our more evolved, Educated times?

Well, Its based on our knowledge of how religions are formed, Like Mormonism or Islam. Its quite laughable for you or me, When we hear about how Mormonism began, And what happened with Joseph Smith and the Seer stone nonsense. They didnt apply critical thinking, Which is why they believed and followed him, Even with the incredible inconsistencies and ridiculous excuses he made regarding the revelations.

And what do you mean by "How do you explain new religions"? The fact that the average IQ score have increased, Doesnt mean that there aren't people on the lower rung of the bell curve. The fact that we are better educated, Doesnt mean we aren't gullible, Or be raised in a society that promotes being gullible to specific types of beliefs.

Then your claim that religions developed because people of old were uneducated and superstitious is incoherent. If you admit that people are the same today as yesteryear, Then your explanation is nonsense.

He did not use that argument. You did. And how or whether it blows your mind is immaterial to the question at hand.

He did.

Ok. He has a voice. We can agree to disagree.

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced. Are you familiar with his uni-topic posts?

Yes, Quite a lot of them were. And no, I am not familiar with his uni-topic post. Could you please link?

Pick any of them. They may have different titles, But they all have the same topic.

In our experience, Atheists are the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every DDO religion board poster

Yes, That is basically the gist of what I said. Im glad your experience is matching up with my words.

Then they have the BoP.

they seek out and harass.

Sorry if you didnt know this, But this website is called "Debate dot org". Its a place where people come to discuss and debate different things, With different viewpoints.

Debate is not synonymous with harass.

You were not minding your business and just happened to come across a preacher on a neutral street corner. You entered a religion board, Looking for people you could preach to. The theist is the one who was minding his own business and meets you on a religion board corner, And is the one saying to you, "I don't believe you. "

Your crooked perception may be the reason you deny having the BOP.

What?

Did I stutter?

First off, I never said I was minidng my own business and just happened to come across you guys preaching.

The person with the position you are defending said so.

I completely accept the fact that I came here on this board to have a discussion. You know, The whole "Debate" part in "Debate dot org". I thought that was obvious.

Then in the analogy, You're the shouting idiot on the corner.

Secondly, Again, what? We wouldnt know who someone was, Or if they even existed, Unless they had registered, And then posted, Or had been in some way active in this board beyond simply looking through the threads.

Like you noticed my posts to willows.

And yes, If you start posting, Or start having debates and discussions, Then youre no longer minidng your own business anymore, Youre actively involved in a website that is built around the premise of discussion and debate.

What are you even referring to, When you say that I have a crooked perception?

You see good things as bad. Your morality is based on your personal tastes.

Who are all the actual people on the streets, Preaching to actual people who are minding their own business?

If they are on a public street, They cannot be analogous to a theist on DDO. They sound like atheists on DDO.

Who are all the actual people going door to door, Ringing doorbells to spread the word, To people who are minding their own business?

The atheists on religion boards.
Willows
Posts: 11,688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2019 3:08:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
tkubok wrote:

There is so much wrong with your post. First, Islam is not the fastest growing religion. Thus, Calling it the default because it's the fastest growing religion would be factually incorrect. Islam has the fastest rate of growth, But Christianity is still adding more people.

Pewresearch why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

Title reads: "Why muslims are the worlds fastest growing religious group".

But maybe you could extrapolate on what you mean by "Not the fastest growing religion", While being "the fastest rate of growth", And the distinction you are trying to put between the two sentences.

If a religion had only two believers, And increased that number to 4 in one year, It's rate of growth would 50%, Higher than any religion on earth, But would have added only 2 people.

A religion that had 100 people and added 10 believers in one year, Would have a rate of growth of only 10%, 5 times less than than the religion that added only 2 people.

When people say "fastest growing", Do they mean the rate, Or the actual number of people? Islam is not adding as many people as Christianity. In terms of new believers, Christianity beats any religion.

And you did not tell us the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof". What is this difference?

One is simply a metric as to the percentage of people who believe a claim is true, And the other is whether or not, By our generally agreed upon standard, A specific side has a burden of proof.

Your answer here is irrational.

That is not what TS said either. But you needed to link your fallacy claim. I get it.

If his claim is that the burden of proof is on Atheists because the default position is that most people in history have believed in God, Then yes, That is a fallacy.

His claim is that the person making the claim has the BoP, Theist or atheist.

I never claimed God did not exist. Looks like I dodged a bullet there!

The bullet will wait until you do make that claim.

Of course, The same usually can't be said of a theist, Now, Can it?

If a theist makes a claim, He has the BoP.

Actually, Tests have shown that people of the past were better at reasoning, And more familiar with the classic philosophers. You throw claims around without one shred of support, You seem to simply expect us to believe you.

How far back are you talking about, . . . . .

+500 years.

And are you also talking about the scholars themselves, Or the general public?

Gen pop.

Do you have any support for this claim? How do you explain new religions in our more evolved, Educated times?

Well, Its based on our knowledge of how religions are formed, Like Mormonism or Islam. Its quite laughable for you or me, When we hear about how Mormonism began, And what happened with Joseph Smith and the Seer stone nonsense. They didnt apply critical thinking, Which is why they believed and followed him, Even with the incredible inconsistencies and ridiculous excuses he made regarding the revelations.

And what do you mean by "How do you explain new religions"? The fact that the average IQ score have increased, Doesnt mean that there aren't people on the lower rung of the bell curve. The fact that we are better educated, Doesnt mean we aren't gullible, Or be raised in a society that promotes being gullible to specific types of beliefs.

Then your claim that religions developed because people of old were uneducated and superstitious is incoherent. If you admit that people are the same today as yesteryear, Then your explanation is nonsense.

He did not use that argument. You did. And how or whether it blows your mind is immaterial to the question at hand.

He did.

Ok. He has a voice. We can agree to disagree.

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced. Are you familiar with his uni-topic posts?

Yes, Quite a lot of them were. And no, I am not familiar with his uni-topic post. Could you please link?

Pick any of them. They may have different titles, But they all have the same topic.

In our experience, Atheists are the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every DDO religion board poster

Yes, That is basically the gist of what I said. Im glad your experience is matching up with my words.

Then they have the BoP.

they seek out and harass.

Sorry if you didnt know this, But this website is called "Debate dot org". Its a place where people come to discuss and debate different things, With different viewpoints.

Debate is not synonymous with harass.


You were not minding your business and just happened to come across a preacher on a neutral street corner. You entered a religion board, Looking for people you could preach to. The theist is the one who was minding his own business and meets you on a religion board corner, And is the one saying to you, "I don't believe you. "

Your crooked perception may be the reason you deny having the BOP.

What?

Did I stutter?

First off, I never said I was minidng my own business and just happened to come across you guys preaching.

The person with the position you are defending said so.

I completely accept the fact that I came here on this board to have a discussion. You know, The whole "Debate" part in "Debate dot org". I thought that was obvious.

Then in the analogy, You're the shouting idiot on the corner.

Secondly, Again, what? We wouldnt know who someone was, Or if they even existed, Unless they had registered, And then posted, Or had been in some way active in this board beyond simply looking through the threads.

Like you noticed my posts to willows.

And yes, If you start posting, Or start having debates and discussions, Then youre no longer minidng your own business anymore, Youre actively involved in a website that is built around the premise of discussion and debate.

What are you even referring to, When you say that I have a crooked perception?

You see good things as bad. Your morality is based on your personal tastes.

Who are all the actual people on the streets, Preaching to actual people who are minding their own business?

If they are on a public street, They cannot be analogous to a theist on DDO. They sound like atheists on DDO.

Who are all the actual people going door to door, Ringing doorbells to spread the word, To people who are minding their own business?

The atheists on religion boards.

Your time will come when a bunch of Islamists toting AK47s bashes (sorry, Taps) down the door to your mud hut.
What are you going to do?
Chuck one of your bibles at them?
Fat lot of good that will do.
ethang5
Posts: 19,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2019 5:35:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willows wrote:
ethang5 wrote:
tkubok wrote:

There is so much wrong with your post. First, Islam is not the fastest growing religion. Thus, Calling it the default because it's the fastest growing religion would be factually incorrect. Islam has the fastest rate of growth, But Christianity is still adding more people.

Pewresearch why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

Title reads: "Why muslims are the worlds fastest growing religious group".

But maybe you could extrapolate on what you mean by "Not the fastest growing religion", While being "the fastest rate of growth", And the distinction you are trying to put between the two sentences.

If a religion had only two believers, And increased that number to 4 in one year, It's rate of growth would 50%, Higher than any religion on earth, But would have added only 2 people.

A religion that had 100 people and added 10 believers in one year, Would have a rate of growth of only 10%, 5 times less than than the religion that added only 2 people.

When people say "fastest growing", Do they mean the rate, Or the actual number of people? Islam is not adding as many people as Christianity. In terms of new believers, Christianity beats any religion.

And you did not tell us the difference between "default position with regards to how many people believe in it" versus "default position with regards to burden of proof". What is this difference?

One is simply a metric as to the percentage of people who believe a claim is true, And the other is whether or not, By our generally agreed upon standard, A specific side has a burden of proof.

Your answer here is irrational.

That is not what TS said either. But you needed to link your fallacy claim. I get it.

If his claim is that the burden of proof is on Atheists because the default position is that most people in history have believed in God, Then yes, That is a fallacy.

His claim is that the person making the claim has the BoP, Theist or atheist.

I never claimed God did not exist. Looks like I dodged a bullet there!

The bullet will wait until you do make that claim.

Of course, The same usually can't be said of a theist, Now, Can it?

If a theist makes a claim, He has the BoP.

Actually, Tests have shown that people of the past were better at reasoning, And more familiar with the classic philosophers. You throw claims around without one shred of support, You seem to simply expect us to believe you.

How far back are you talking about, . . . . .

+500 years.

And are you also talking about the scholars themselves, Or the general public?

Gen pop.

Do you have any support for this claim? How do you explain new religions in our more evolved, Educated times?

Well, Its based on our knowledge of how religions are formed, Like Mormonism or Islam. Its quite laughable for you or me, When we hear about how Mormonism began, And what happened with Joseph Smith and the Seer stone nonsense. They didnt apply critical thinking, Which is why they believed and followed him, Even with the incredible inconsistencies and ridiculous excuses he made regarding the revelations.

And what do you mean by "How do you explain new religions"? The fact that the average IQ score have increased, Doesnt mean that there aren't people on the lower rung of the bell curve. The fact that we are better educated, Doesnt mean we aren't gullible, Or be raised in a society that promotes being gullible to specific types of beliefs.

Then your claim that religions developed because people of old were uneducated and superstitious is incoherent. If you admit that people are the same today as yesteryear, Then your explanation is nonsense.

He did not use that argument. You did. And how or whether it blows your mind is immaterial to the question at hand.

He did.

Ok. He has a voice. We can agree to disagree.

In the world of Willows, Such people would be brutally silenced. Are you familiar with his uni-topic posts?

Yes, Quite a lot of them were. And no, I am not familiar with his uni-topic post. Could you please link?

Pick any of them. They may have different titles, But they all have the same topic.

In our experience, Atheists are the people who are saying "I don't believe you" to every DDO religion board poster

Yes, That is basically the gist of what I said. Im glad your experience is matching up with my words.

Then they have the BoP.

they seek out and harass.

Sorry if you didnt know this, But this website is called "Debate dot org". Its a place where people come to discuss and debate different things, With different viewpoints.

Debate is not synonymous with harass.


You were not minding your business and just happened to come across a preacher on a neutral street corner. You entered a religion board, Looking for people you could preach to. The theist is the one who was minding his own business and meets you on a religion board corner, And is the one saying to you, "I don't believe you. "

Your crooked perception may be the reason you deny having the BOP.

What?

Did I stutter?

First off, I never said I was minidng my own business and just happened to come across you guys preaching.

The person with the position you are defending said so.

I completely accept the fact that I came here on this board to have a discussion. You know, The whole "Debate" part in "Debate dot org". I thought that was obvious.

Then in the analogy, You're the shouting idiot on the corner.

Secondly, Again, what? We wouldnt know who someone was, Or if they even existed, Unless they had registered, And then posted, Or had been in some way active in this board beyond simply looking through the threads.

Like you noticed my posts to willows.

And yes, If you start posting, Or start having debates and discussions, Then youre no longer minidng your own business anymore, Youre actively involved in a website that is built around the premise of discussion and debate.

What are you even referring to, When you say that I have a crooked perception?

You see good things as bad. Your morality is based on your personal tastes.

Who are all the actual people on the streets, Preaching to actual people who are minding their own business?

If they are on a public street, They cannot be analogous to a theist on DDO. They sound like atheists on DDO.

Who are all the actual people going door to door, Ringing doorbells to spread the word, To people who are minding their own business?

The atheists on religion boards.

Your time will come when a bunch of Islamists toting AK47s bashes (sorry, Taps) down the door to your mud hut.

No, You're not racist at all.

What are you going to do?

You are more likely to die of a home invasion.

Chuck one of your bibles at them?

I worship a living God.

Fat lot of good that will do.

You can only hope moron.
Harikrish
Posts: 30,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2019 3:56:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
Stop spamming and cite your lie moron.

You said I "confessed" to be African.

I called you a pathetic liar.

You said you had the citation.

Where is it? If you have it, Why are you still spamming the same post over and over?
I have your confession. But there is so much more that needs to be exposed while I have the nigger burning. Lol!

The nigger Ethang5 is burning. Lol! I held the nigger's incriminating confession to give him more rope to hang himself. Lol! Self lynching was expected from niggers caught lying by their white Christian masters. Lol!

Nigger Ethang5 you are in denial. Snap out like Jesus did. Jesus lamented on the cross.
"My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me? "

You are a self loathing nigger and we have your confession. Why would a nigger Christian slave lie in public about his negroid lineage unless he is ashamed of being African and see his black skin and negroid appearence as the biblical curse of Ham. The bible condemned Africans to slavery and you spent 16 years smuggling bibles to spread that message so that other niggers like you would follow a slave religion.

See how you trapped yourself in your denials and was exposed by Harikrish a biblical scholar and spiritual leader. When you agree and accept you always respond with 'OK stupid'. So let us see what you agree and accept in the exchanges below.

Ethang5 wrote: I've linked comments by your PM saying Indians are ashamed of being Indian. Like the coward Gandhi said you were, You hid behind African skirts. You have not even acknowledged the comment. Don't lie now and say you'd defend your people. You don't coward.

Hari: He is still the PM so he must like India. Even Trump loves India.

Nigger Ethang wrote: OK stupid.

Hari wrote: No slavery in India.

Nigger Ethang wrote: OK stupid.

Harikrish: You cannot even name a single African achievement. What a black negroid low IQ shithole you turned out to be.

Nigger Ethang: OK stupid.

Harikrish: You are not proud to be African.

Ethang5 wrote: We agree here, But for some reason, You keep repeating on what we agree. Yes, I am not proud to be African. I cannot be proud to be African.

Harikrish: Most Africans are not proud to be Africans.

Harikrish: You even said you are not an African anymore. Like you can quit your negroid lineage.

Ethang5 wrote: Lol. Of course I am African, Why do you keep talking about America? Make up your mind which path of mental retardation you're going to take.

You confirm you are a full time slave in Ghana Africa.
Ethang5 wrote: It's becoming morning in Canada. Shouldn't you be awake if you're working there?
I have free time, Even though I am a full time slave. Why don't you?

Are you living on a farm in Africa?

Ethang5 wrote: I have raised many generations of dogs, Cows, Horses, And pigs. They generally are not incestous in non-restrictive environments. Human even more so. Do animals also consider offspring?

Or the animals must live with you in your house.

Ethang5 wrote: I have an electrified fence at my house. I had it put in. Is it wrong that I warn visitors to my home about it? If a visitor ignores my warning, Can he claim because I installed it, I'm responsible for his injury after having not believed my warning?

Is your house really a prison?
Ethang5 wrote: I work with prisoners. Many say they are Christian because the think it will facilitate their case with the parole board.

How you spent your years don't add up.
You started out as an atheist because of your father.
Your said your father was a black negroid atheist. Your position as an atheist was that religion was a crutch for the mentally weak. "

You owed your development to your atheist father.
Ethang5 wrote: My father did not have to earn my trust. He had it because of who he was; my father. I respected him because it was due him. It was my duty to do so. Had I not trusted and respected him, I would be in prison or dead by now.

But you lie about your upbringing claiming you were raised a Christian.
Ethang 5 wrote: I learned to love Jesus above all else from my parents who wouldn't have it any other way. I would instantly forbid any of my family placing me above or even on equal footing with His Royal Omnipotent Majesty in any sense. And I have taught my daughters to love Jesus above all else, Even themselves.

If you were raised as an atheist by your atheist father, What were you doing studying the bible at 7 (50+7) your current age.
Ethang5 wrote: I have studied the entire Bible for almost 50 years and have not yet found a single contradiction or falsehood in it.

You were still an atheist when you were debating atheists.
Ethang5 wrote: In my 35 years of debating atheists, I have never ever once heard an atheist ask, "What would have happened if the offending youth was not stopped? " They simply take away all context, Assume they are right (because they think the judgement isn't one they'd make) and then behave as if the Bible is eeeeevil. Any attempt to move them to rationality is treated as a lust to stone kids.

Time wasted is time lost.
Ethang5 wrote: Having been kicked off more than a hundred forums, I understand your trepidation. But I don't think you have too much to worry about. The overwhelming majority of posters here would not want you banned or censured.

Now add to that your 16 years as a delivery mule smuggling free bibles in Ghana Africa.
Nigger, That is your biography as a low IQ negroid slave living in a Trump shithole African country.
tkubok
Posts: 5,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2019 5:08:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
If a religion had only two believers, And increased that number to 4 in one year, It's rate of growth would 50%, Higher than any religion on earth, But would have added only 2 people.

A religion that had 100 people and added 10 believers in one year, Would have a rate of growth of only 10%, 5 times less than than the religion that added only 2 people.

When people say "fastest growing", Do they mean the rate, Or the actual number of people? Islam is not adding as many people as Christianity. In terms of new believers, Christianity beats any religion.

Right now, It may not be anymore. Its harder to pinpoint because we don't have exact numbers, But based on the stats available, With Christianity at around 2. 3 billion and Islam at 1. 8 billion as of 2015, And the somewhat outdated statistics of 2007 where islam is growing at a rate of 1. 8%, Versus 1. 3% for christianity, Which, If applied to the numbers today, Means that there are more mulsims garnering new believers.

And by new believers, Im talking about the actual population, Which would include children. For both sides.

Your answer here is irrational.

Please, Feel free to elaborate.

The bullet will wait until you do make that claim.

In the meantime, Theists are making the claim, Just by calling themselves theists.

+500 years.

Cool.

Gen pop.

Again, Cool.

So now I must ask. Where are you getting this from? Because the age of enlightenment was only 300-400 years ago, And during that 100 years was when things like literacy shot up and even the general public was starting to understand concepts such as the scientific method, And this is the only period that I am aware of where the general populace was actually starting to increase their literacy rates and knowledge, And not just the scholars and the minority of the population.

Pick any of them. They may have different titles, But they all have the same topic.

Can you give me an example of a title he used?

Debate is not synonymous with harass.

Sure. But if you post on a public forums on a website dedicated to discuss and debate, And someone posts a reply to you, Thats not harassment, Is it?

Did I stutter?

Yes. Your brain stuttered.

The person with the position you are defending said so.

I am not defending someone elses position. If someone makes a claim, Even as a reply to someone else, And the claim is false, Pointing out that the claim is false is irrelevant to whether it is defending someone else or not.

The claims and arguments stand or fall on their own, And are not dependant on who is making the argument, Or who is replying to whom.

Is that the proper way to use the word "Whom"? Im not sure.

Then in the analogy, You're the shouting idiot on the corner.

Since im replying to someone, Not really, No. Unless the person in the corner is shouting at another person in another corner. In which case, Sure.

But thanks for agreeing that the preachers on the corners shouting about the bible on the outside world are idiots.

Like you noticed my posts to willows.

Yes. You posted. I noticed. Thats how it works.

If you hadnt posted, I would never had noticed. Infact, If you hadnt ever registered on this website, I would not know who you are.

You see good things as bad. Your morality is based on your personal tastes.

Id prefer people actually make arguments instead of assertions. So please, Elaborate.

If they are on a public street, They cannot be analogous to a theist on DDO. They sound like atheists on DDO.

Unless youre saying that theists do not make forum threads talking about religion, Then we are all like that. And im perfectly fine with this.

The atheists on religion boards.

Again, Unless youre saying that theists do not make forum threads talking about religion, Then we are all like that.

And im perfectly fine with this. Because this is a forums. Designed with the intent for people to come and discuss these things.

Just like im fine with Hyde Park, London, Where people come to congregate and preach and shout and discuss, As it was designed to do so.

Your average street corner, Is not. Your house, Is not. Guess who goes around houses and preaches. Guess who stands on street corners and preaches.
anonthesmallone
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2019 6:53:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willows writes an excellent post, Especially his last sentence: "Belief plus Experience minus proof equals delusion". But the same succinct equation can be applied to the atheists.

Who proves God exits? Only God. The burden of proof is on God and not man, Especially man using dead prophets and a dead Bible without current revelation today that everyone can see first-hand. If God does not prove He is God, Then that is His responsibly and business and not man's.

Premise: If God does not want to show the evidence, Then He won't for reasons known only to Him.

That one tiny premise, If true, Ends the entire debate between atheists and theists. However, It does not end discussing the weeds in the Bible. The atheist will be a major force to remove all religions on earth and stand on the evidence of the ETs to shift us from standing on opinions of man to evidence we can see by the flying saucer technology and free energy. Brilliant chess move! Valiant Thor is a translated man.
Turn the light of the third eye and live (Ezekiel 18)
https://www.debate.org...
anonthesmallone
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2019 7:07:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The Luciferians created the "burden of proof" argument to continue an endless debate by placing the burden of proof on man and not God where it logically and rationally belongs. The logic is created to keep the debate going to hide what is really going on behind the curtain with Ra (Lucifer) using first-hand evidence galore to create belief and trust in Him, And the debate never ends by design to fool the sincere atheists into a delusion. God controls the evidence. Period. It is His responsibility and business not man's.
Turn the light of the third eye and live (Ezekiel 18)
https://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.