Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[notmyself]

How does one reject the claim there is a God?

Many use the word anti-theism as a label for the claim there is no god. so..

Theism - A claim that a theistic god exists.

Atheism - A rejection of the theistic claim.

Anti-theism - A claim that there is no theistic god.

I personally don't like it because the word is already understood in other ways so it muddies the water.

Stampcollector - Someone who collects stamps

Astampcollector - Someone who does not collect stamps 'or' by seemingly your understanding, someone who collects something other than stamps.

Anti-stampcollector - Someone who denies stamps exist? Someone who denies collecting stamps is a hobby? Someone who denies that collecting stamps is possible?

If atheism is a claim then astampcollecting (not collecting stamps) is a hobby 'or' someone must have a hobby of some kind because it would be impossible not to. If atheism is NOT a claim then astampcollecting is not a hobby and you don't HAVE to have a hobby.

Edited January 26, 2014 by notmyself

[thailiketoo]

Rejecting the claim that 'there is a god', or 'the earth was made in 6 days' does not constitute a claim in itself; you'd need a counter-claim for that.

I hope we can agree that the overriding claim we are discussing here is that which states there is a higher being as typically justified by the sum of other 'sub-claims', such as the bible/koran are the words of the creator, the earth was made in 6 days, all animals were created in their current form, or evolution was guided by said higher power, and so on... There are also those who believe because they consider a universe without purpose wrong in some sense, a claim which to them requires the counter-claim that its purpose is crafted by a higher power.

These are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence, and I posit they can be rejected individually, and in aggregate form, without the requirement for a counter-claim, unless of course the extraordinary evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. It seems reasonable to me to accept not to understand over accepting the extraordinary without compelling evidence.

There are other types of claim that do require counter-claim such as being told you were somewhere when you were not, or that the waitress had green earrings, not blue...

Speaking only from personal experience, I find many, but not all, religious people expect their claims to be treated as ordinary claims, requiring definitive counter-claim, yet expect their beliefs to be treated specially and beyond reproach.

To recap, if I were to tell you to your face that your blue shirt was green, you could furnish the evidence to correct me. But, if I told you that you wore that blue shirt because an invisible being influenced your decision to do so, you could rightly reject my claim without having to resort to the patently obvious; that you wore blue because you chose to/were told to by your other half

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

Sent - how is not that important...

How does one reject the claim there is a God? They say no there is no God. Which is a counter claim. Two sides of an argument. One side is not right and the other wrong based on plausibility.

If you had said in 1955 Obama, a socialist black man with hardly any achievements,would become president, would win a Nobel prize for simply being popular, run up the debt to 17 trillion, and following that,the next president would be a woman, the wife of a former president that cheated on her in office creating a very public scandal but no one will make anything of it. (OK the second part hasn't happened yet, but I am going for extraordinary claims).

By your logic someone could just say that could never happen, and they would be right because your claim is too extraordinary and does not need to be refuted.

It doesn't matter how extraordinary the claim. if you say something doesn't exist and you can't prove it neither can anyone disprove it. you just have to disagree. you don't get to be right because the other side is too crazy to believe.

For many, the counter claim, there is no God is the extreme and crazy side of the debate.

It's called the burden of proof. You have had the same argument a number of times loosing every time but one more time I guess. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. The fallacy of an argument from ignorance occurs if, when a claim is challenged, the burden of proof is shifted to be on the challenger.

In most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and god) When two people walk into an empty room and one says the room is not empty and the other says nonsense there is nothing in the room; the burden of proof rests with the person who makes the claim that something exists not that claims nothing exists.

The skeptic does not owe the claim maker arguments for non existence.

[boomerangutang]

Rejecting the claim that 'there is a god', or 'the earth was made in 6 days' does not constitute a claim in itself; you'd need a counter-claim for that.

I hope we can agree that the overriding claim we are discussing here is that which states there is a higher being as typically justified by the sum of other 'sub-claims', such as the bible/koran are the words of the creator, the earth was made in 6 days, all animals were created in their current form, or evolution was guided by said higher power, and so on... There are also those who believe because they consider a universe without purpose wrong in some sense, a claim which to them requires the counter-claim that its purpose is crafted by a higher power.

These are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence, and I posit they can be rejected individually, and in aggregate form, without the requirement for a counter-claim, unless of course the extraordinary evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. It seems reasonable to me to accept not to understand over accepting the extraordinary without compelling evidence.

There are other types of claim that do require counter-claim such as being told you were somewhere when you were not, or that the waitress had green earrings, not blue...

Speaking only from personal experience, I find many, but not all, religious people expect their claims to be treated as ordinary claims, requiring definitive counter-claim, yet expect their beliefs to be treated specially and beyond reproach.

To recap, if I were to tell you to your face that your blue shirt was green, you could furnish the evidence to correct me. But, if I told you that you wore that blue shirt because an invisible being influenced your decision to do so, you could rightly reject my claim without having to resort to the patently obvious; that you wore blue because you chose to/were told to by your other half

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

Sent - how is not that important...

How does one reject the claim there is a God? They say no there is no God. Which is a counter claim. Two sides of an argument. One side is not right and the other wrong based on plausibility.

If you had said in 1955 Obama, a socialist black man with hardly any achievements,would become president, would win a Nobel prize for simply being popular, run up the debt to 17 trillion, and following that,the next president would be a woman, the wife of a former president that cheated on her in office creating a very public scandal but no one will make anything of it. (OK the second part hasn't happened yet, but I am going for extraordinary claims).

By your logic someone could just say that could never happen, and they would be right because your claim is too extraordinary and does not need to be refuted.

It doesn't matter how extraordinary the claim. if you say something doesn't exist and you can't prove it neither can anyone disprove it. you just have to disagree. you don't get to be right because the other side is too crazy to believe.

For many, the counter claim, there is no God is the extreme and crazy side of the debate.

There are some things which can be proven or disproven, then there are claims which are too nebulous to be proven of disproven. God is firmly in the latter category. So is metaphysics, and most of the paranormal such as alien encounters, big foot, transference of thoughts, etc.

Actually, there are some proofs which can show that, for example, big foot and crop circles and the Loch Ness monster sightings are people-contrived hoaxes. Yet even when the perpetrators of the hoaxes come out and explain their mischief, there are always die-hards who continue to believe.

Religion is not much different. If I'm not mistaken, the virgin-birth myth about Jesus was written only in one of the four 'Gospels.' So essentially, one old man, writing a text over a hundred years after Jesus' death, is responsible for perpetrating that counter-to-nature myth. That's just one example of hundreds, if one were to comb through holy texts and scrutinize their justification for there being a God.

Incidentally, the birth of Jesus story, is very similar to the birth of Krisna - which was written hundreds of years prior - actually before the Krisna story was written, it was transferred verbally from generation to generation. Is that coincidence? Also, look at the names Abraham and Brahma. The Hindu Brahma (The Creator) myth predated the Christian Abraham myth by hundreds of years. Abraham is also a creator figure, in that he was essentially the first patriarch mentioned in the Bible. By that yardstick, Christianity owes much of its myths to Hinduism. India and the Middle East are not so very far apart. Not too far to trek, if one were determined.

India has a long and rich history with spiritually enlightened beings. The Middle East has a paucity, in comparison. It's like comparing Rolls Royce with Yugo.

[DualSportBiker]

How does one reject the claim there is a God? They say no there is no God

Incorrect, you assert there is a whale in my kitchen sink, I do not need to make a claim to the contrary, I only need say "You have no evidence to support your claim." If I state that there is no room for a whale because my sink is full of sharks, then and only then would I need to provide evidence of my counter-claim.

I don't think your logic is sound. If you claim that there used to be a whale in my sink, but it has teleported away, i would have trouble providing evidence that it was never there (ignore CCTV and damage to the sink for the while...) that does not mean we have to agree to disagree, or that the outrageous claim is worthy of consideration. That many people consider the 'lack of god' to be a crazy idea adds nothing; the entire population considered the earth flat up to a relatively recent time.

Rejecting the claim that 'there is a god', or 'the earth was made in 6 days' does not constitute a claim in itself; you'd need a counter-claim for that.

I hope we can agree that the overriding claim we are discussing here is that which states there is a higher being as typically justified by the sum of other 'sub-claims', such as the bible/koran are the words of the creator, the earth was made in 6 days, all animals were created in their current form, or evolution was guided by said higher power, and so on... There are also those who believe because they consider a universe without purpose wrong in some sense, a claim which to them requires the counter-claim that its purpose is crafted by a higher power.

These are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence, and I posit they can be rejected individually, and in aggregate form, without the requirement for a counter-claim, unless of course the extraordinary evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. It seems reasonable to me to accept not to understand over accepting the extraordinary without compelling evidence.

There are other types of claim that do require counter-claim such as being told you were somewhere when you were not, or that the waitress had green earrings, not blue...

Speaking only from personal experience, I find many, but not all, religious people expect their claims to be treated as ordinary claims, requiring definitive counter-claim, yet expect their beliefs to be treated specially and beyond reproach.

To recap, if I were to tell you to your face that your blue shirt was green, you could furnish the evidence to correct me. But, if I told you that you wore that blue shirt because an invisible being influenced your decision to do so, you could rightly reject my claim without having to resort to the patently obvious; that you wore blue because you chose to/were told to by your other half

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

Sent - how is not that important...

How does one reject the claim there is a God? They say no there is no God. Which is a counter claim. Two sides of an argument. One side is not right and the other wrong based on plausibility.

If you had said in 1955 Obama, a socialist black man with hardly any achievements,would become president, would win a Nobel prize for simply being popular, run up the debt to 17 trillion, and following that,the next president would be a woman, the wife of a former president that cheated on her in office creating a very public scandal but no one will make anything of it. (OK the second part hasn't happened yet, but I am going for extraordinary claims).

By your logic someone could just say that could never happen, and they would be right because your claim is too extraordinary and does not need to be refuted.

It doesn't matter how extraordinary the claim. if you say something doesn't exist and you can't prove it neither can anyone disprove it. you just have to disagree. you don't get to be right because the other side is too crazy to believe.

For many, the counter claim, there is no God is the extreme and crazy side of the debate.

Sent - how is not that important...

Edited January 26, 2014 by DualSportBiker

[canuckamuck]

How does one reject the claim there is a God?

Many use the word anti-theism as a label for the claim there is no god. so..

Theism - A claim that a theistic god exists.

Atheism - A rejection of the theistic claim.

Anti-theism - A claim that there is no theistic god.

I personally don't like it because the word is already understood in other ways so it muddies the water.

Stampcollector - Someone who collects stamps

Astampcollector - Someone who does not collect stamps 'or' by seemingly your understanding, someone who collects something other than stamps.

Anti-stampcollector - Someone who denies stamps exist? Someone who denies collecting stamps is a hobby? Someone who denies that collecting stamps is possible?

If atheism is a claim then astampcollecting (not collecting stamps) is a hobby 'or' someone must have a hobby of some kind because it would be impossible not to. If atheism is NOT a claim then astampcollecting is not a hobby and you don't HAVE to have a hobby.

the prefix a means: without, lacking, or not.

In your example comparing Theism to stamp collecting; one is a belief system, one is an activity. You can't be without, lacking, or not, an activity. you can however be without, lacking, or not, a quality. You can't be an astampcollector. that is not correct English. Please find an example that is correct

[canuckamuck]

It's called the burden of proof. You have had the same argument a number of times loosing every time but one more time I guess. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. The fallacy of an argument from ignorance occurs if, when a claim is challenged, the burden of proof is shifted to be on the challenger.

In most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and god) When two people walk into an empty room and one says the room is not empty and the other says nonsense there is nothing in the room; the burden of proof rests with the person who makes the claim that something exists not that claims nothing exists.

The skeptic does not owe the claim maker arguments for non existence.

When have I argued this particular point before? You are incorrect.

Your argument here falls apart as soon as the situation is reversed. if the conversation begins with 'there is no God', then that claim has a burden of proof.

[sirineou]

You said a lot there chicken man. Most of what I agree with

But tell me do you really think "I think there for I am" is a belief??

Because if you Think It is a Belief, then you mast be thinking, there fore you are.

How could you think if you were not?

But tell me how do you think the statement was shown to be wrong??

Can some one not be and think?

Too long ago dear Sir for me to remember exactly where to go to dig out all the bits and pieces from more places than I care to remember. Also, very rarely ever comes up so it doesn't stay fresh in the mind. It did come up a couple of years back as I remember but only in passing. Previous to that must be 20+ years. It's not like a formula or paper was presented but a long discussion over some time. A couple of people have tackled it quite seriously but not for quite some time. 200 years at a guess but maybe it is 300. You cannot prove you exist so you have to accept that you do, that's a belief. Just to go back a tad... One of the reasons it is never really brought up is because we are all in the same boat with regard to it so/ and the knowledge itself is of no intrinsic value. Should I ever happen to speak of it again in my life it will most likely be exactly the aspect we have spoken about it. This is no doubt why people never hear about it, nobody is taught it outside of universities and there is no value in knowing it insofar as using it to gain other knowledge.

I hope you did not hurt your self during those evasive maneuvers, I must admit very impressive, especially the smoke and mirrors.

But it still did not answer my question.

If you think , you must exist, otherwise how could you think.

so the question is......

wait for it,,,, wait for it.....

Can you Think and not exist,

[thailiketoo]

It's called the burden of proof. You have had the same argument a number of times loosing every time but one more time I guess. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. The fallacy of an argument from ignorance occurs if, when a claim is challenged, the burden of proof is shifted to be on the challenger.

In most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and god) When two people walk into an empty room and one says the room is not empty and the other says nonsense there is nothing in the room; the burden of proof rests with the person who makes the claim that something exists not that claims nothing exists.

The skeptic does not owe the claim maker arguments for non existence.

When have I argued this particular point before? You are incorrect.

Your argument here falls apart as soon as the situation is reversed. if the conversation begins with 'there is no God', then that claim has a burden of proof.

No one needs to reject a claim that there is no god. You are the claimant. You have the burden of proof. We both walk into an empty room. I say, "the room is empty" and you say there is a person in the room." Who has the burden of proof? The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists. If you reject the rules why argue logic?

Edited January 26, 2014 by thailiketoo

[canuckamuck]

There are some things which can be proven or disproven, then there are claims which are too nebulous to be proven of disproven. God is firmly in the latter category. So is metaphysics, and most of the paranormal such as alien encounters, big foot, transference of thoughts, etc.

Actually, there are some proofs which can show that, for example, big foot and crop circles and the Loch Ness monster sightings are people-contrived hoaxes. Yet even when the perpetrators of the hoaxes come out and explain their mischief, there are always die-hards who continue to believe.

Religion is not much different. If I'm not mistaken, the virgin-birth myth about Jesus was written only in one of the four 'Gospels.' So essentially, one old man, writing a text over a hundred years after Jesus' death, is responsible for perpetrating that counter-to-nature myth. That's just one example of hundreds, if one were to comb through holy texts and scrutinize their justification for there being a God.

Incidentally, the birth of Jesus story, is very similar to the birth of Krisna - which was written hundreds of years prior - actually before the Krisna story was written, it was transferred verbally from generation to generation. Is that coincidence? Also, look at the names Abraham and Brahma. The Hindu Brahma (The Creator) myth predated the Christian Abraham myth by hundreds of years. Abraham is also a creator figure, in that he was essentially the first patriarch mentioned in the Bible. By that yardstick, Christianity owes much of its myths to Hinduism. India and the Middle East are not so very far apart. Not too far to trek, if one were determined.

India has a long and rich history with spiritually enlightened beings. The Middle East has a paucity, in comparison. It's like comparing Rolls Royce with Yugo.

Most of your post is best for a different topic, because you are discussing the facets of Christianity rather than the topic of belief or no belief. However, about the virgin birth. The four gospels have some overlapping accounts, and all of them contain things the others do not contain. it is four authors telling what they felt were the most important aspects of the life of Christ. If you had found in one of the gospels an alternate tale of Jesus' birth, then that would be different.

[canuckamuck]

It's called the burden of proof. You have had the same argument a number of times loosing every time but one more time I guess. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. The fallacy of an argument from ignorance occurs if, when a claim is challenged, the burden of proof is shifted to be on the challenger.

In most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and god) When two people walk into an empty room and one says the room is not empty and the other says nonsense there is nothing in the room; the burden of proof rests with the person who makes the claim that something exists not that claims nothing exists.

The skeptic does not owe the claim maker arguments for non existence.

When have I argued this particular point before? You are incorrect.

Your argument here falls apart as soon as the situation is reversed. if the conversation begins with 'there is no God', then that claim has a burden of proof.

No one needs to reject a claim that there is no god. You are the claimant. You have the burden of proof. We both walk into an empty room. I say, "the room is empty" and you say there is a person in the room." Who has the burden of proof? The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

If you said to me there is no God I would reject your claim and ask you to prove it.

Edited January 26, 2014 by canuckamuck

[thailiketoo]

No one needs to reject a claim that there is no god. You are the claimant. You have the burden of proof. We both walk into an empty room. I say, "the room is empty" and you say there is a person in the room." Who has the burden of proof? The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

If you said to me there is no God I would reject your claim and ask you to prove it.

The person who claims existence has the burden of proof. The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist.

"Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing."

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Your position is a breach of logic and as such cannot be debated logically.

Edited January 26, 2014 by thailiketoo

[sirineou]

How does one reject the claim there is a God?

Many use the word anti-theism as a label for the claim there is no god. so..

Theism - A claim that a theistic god exists.

Atheism - A rejection of the theistic claim.

Anti-theism - A claim that there is no theistic god.

I personally don't like it because the word is already understood in other ways so it muddies the water.

Stampcollector - Someone who collects stamps

Astampcollector - Someone who does not collect stamps 'or' by seemingly your understanding, someone who collects something other than stamps.

Anti-stampcollector - Someone who denies stamps exist? Someone who denies collecting stamps is a hobby? Someone who denies that collecting stamps is possible?

If atheism is a claim then astampcollecting (not collecting stamps) is a hobby 'or' someone must have a hobby of some kind because it would be impossible not to. If atheism is NOT a claim then astampcollecting is not a hobby and you don't HAVE to have a hobby.

the prefix a means: without, lacking, or not.

In your example comparing Theism to stamp collecting; one is a belief system, one is an activity. You can't be without, lacking, or not, an activity. you can however be without, lacking, or not, a quality. You can't be an astampcollector. that is not correct English. Please find an example that is correct

You are misunderstanding. We are not arguing against your belief system, we are arguing against your supporting evidence.

Do you understand what a system is?

a system has components

let's take a heating system

input: make the house warm

process: light a fire

monitoring: keep the fire to a manageable size so it does not get too hot/burn the house

adjustment: add or remove wood

output: warm room

unintended consequences: smoke

In your belief system you you skip over several of these subroutines

Input: is there a god

Process: examine the evidence

Monitoring:are the evidence sufficient to produce an output

adjustment: attain more evidence

output: inconclusive do to insufficient evidence

unintended consequences:argument, war, strife, suicide bombers BOOM!!!

[notmyself]

the prefix a means: without, lacking, or not.

In your example comparing Theism to stamp collecting; one is a belief system, one is an activity. You can't be without, lacking, or not, an activity. you can however be without, lacking, or not, a quality. You can't be an astampcollector. that is not correct English. Please find an example that is correct

Your argument makes no logical sense.

You can't be without, lacking, or not, an activity.

I presume you mean 'can be' but if not 'walking' is an example.

you can however be without, lacking, or not, a quality.

I agree. Absorptive for example.

You can't be an astampcollector. that is not correct English.

Tough crowd tonight!

Symmetrical

Asymmetrical

I have no doubt you know what the words mean but I have linked to both so we are both singing from the same hymn sheet. No offence intended.

Edited January 26, 2014 by notmyself

[canuckamuck]

removed

Edited January 26, 2014 by canuckamuck

[canuckamuck]

No one needs to reject a claim that there is no god. You are the claimant. You have the burden of proof. We both walk into an empty room. I say, "the room is empty" and you say there is a person in the room." Who has the burden of proof? The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

If you said to me there is no God I would reject your claim and ask you to prove it.

The person who claims existence has the burden of proof. The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist.

"Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing."

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Your position is a breach of logic and as such cannot be debated logically.

Your quote speaks of things which do not exist or which the evidence for is non existent or faulty. But you do not know that God does not exist.

Therefore the argument the non existent part does not apply. if we were talking about something that was known to not exist then you would be correct. But who would argue than a known non-existent entity exists.

The fact that billions of people believe God exists is certainly a type of evidence for a something instead of a nothing. The fact there are no scientific laws that show something can come from nothing is evidence of a trigger. many people find that to be evidence of a creator God. On top of that you can fill a thousand books with the testimonies of people who firmly believe they have an interactive relationship with God, have experienced miracles, and so on. the sheer volume of these reports points to a something instead of a nothing. So it is not a case of something where there is no evidence. If there was a trial there would be evidence to present. There is evidence. Just not proof, in a form you would accept.

Your entire argument is invalid.

[notmyself]

But who would argue than a known non-existent entity exists.

Donald Rumsfeld?

[thailiketoo]

No one needs to reject a claim that there is no god. You are the claimant. You have the burden of proof. We both walk into an empty room. I say, "the room is empty" and you say there is a person in the room." Who has the burden of proof? The burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

If you said to me there is no God I would reject your claim and ask you to prove it.

The person who claims existence has the burden of proof. The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist.

"Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing."

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Burden-of-Proof.htm

Your position is a breach of logic and as such cannot be debated logically.

Your quote speaks of things which do not exist or which the evidence for is non existent or faulty. But you do not know that God does not exist.

Therefore the argument the non existent part does not apply. if we were talking about something that was known to not exist then you would be correct. But who would argue than a known non-existent entity exists.

The fact that billions of people believe God exists is certainly a type of evidence for a something instead of a nothing. The fact there are no scientific laws that show something can come from nothing is evidence of a trigger. many people find that to be evidence of a creator God. On top of that you can fill a thousand books with the testimonies of people who firmly believe they have an interactive relationship with God, have experienced miracles, and so on. the sheer volume of these reports points to a something instead of a nothing. So it is not a case of something where there is no evidence. If there was a trial there would be evidence to present. There is evidence. Just not proof, in a form you would accept.

Your entire argument is invalid.

Sorry but you were proved wrong hundreds of years ago. The person claiming existence will always have the burden of proof. If you don't want to play by the rules of logic. Up to you but I, nor anyone else can debate you.

Simply put you are asking me to prove non existence.

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

God exists. Until you can prove otherwise I will continue to believe that he does.

Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

[canuckamuck]

the prefix a means: without, lacking, or not.

In your example comparing Theism to stamp collecting; one is a belief system, one is an activity. You can't be without, lacking, or not, an activity. you can however be without, lacking, or not, a quality. You can't be an astampcollector. that is not correct English. Please find an example that is correct

Your argument makes no logical sense.

You can't be without, lacking, or not, an activity.

I presume you mean 'can be' but if not 'walking' is an example.

You can't be an astampcollector. that is not correct English.

Tough crowd tonight!

Symmetrical

Asymmetrical

I have no doubt you know what the words mean but I have linked to both so we are both singing from the same hymn sheet. No offence intended.

Be nice to me folks I am arguing four of you at once.

Lacking an action, cannot be formed into a correct adjective using an 'a' prefix, not an action, cannot be formed into a correct adjective using an 'a' prefix, without an action, cannot be formed into a correct adjective using an 'a' prefix.

Having a quality, like symmetry can be formed into an adjective using the a prefix. Belief is a quality, stampcollecting is an action,

[sirineou]

Belief is a quality, stampcollecting is an action,

Some say it is not nice to kick a man when he is down, I say it is the perfect time.

conveniently foot level

I almost sympathize with you, almost. The odds in this thread are unfair, Perhaps if god was to smite a couple of the other guys, me and you could carry this conversation on a more level field.

Belief might not be an action, but the process of arriving at such belief is

As Philatelia is not an action but the process of collecting stumps is.

[canuckamuck]

Therefore the argument the non existent part does not apply. if we were talking about something that was known to not exist then you would be correct. But who would argue than a known non-existent entity exists.

The fact that billions of people believe God exists is certainly a type of evidence for a something instead of a nothing. The fact there are no scientific laws that show something can come from nothing is evidence of a trigger. many people find that to be evidence of a creator God. On top of that you can fill a thousand books with the testimonies of people who firmly believe they have an interactive relationship with God, have experienced miracles, and so on. the sheer volume of these reports points to a something instead of a nothing. So it is not a case of something where there is no evidence. If there was a trial there would be evidence to present. There is evidence. Just not proof, in a form you would accept.

Your entire argument is invalid.

Sorry but you were proved wrong hundreds of years ago. The person claiming existence will always have the burden of proof. If you don't want to play by the rules of logic. Up to you but I, nor anyone else can debate you.

Simply put you are asking me to prove non existence.

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

God exists. Until you can prove otherwise I will continue to believe that he does.

Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

You are being intellectually dishonest if you think that on the topic of God there is no evidence and therefore no logical discussion can be made. there is a massive history of civilizations and culture that believe in a God. In fact atheism has barely existed in comparison; except perhaps in the last century. Stating there is no evidence is like when my wife says she has nothing to wear.

There is a ton of evidence. You just don't believe any of it. That does not make something not exist.

[canuckamuck]

Belief is a quality, stampcollecting is an action,

Some say it is not nice to kick a man when he is down, I say it is the perfect time.

conveniently foot level

I almost sympathize with you, almost. The odds in this thread are unfair, Perhaps if god was to smite a couple of the other guys, me and you could carry this conversation on a more level field.

Belief might not be an action, but the process of arriving at such belief is

As Philatelia is not an action but the process of collecting stumps is.

I honestly do not understand your point, or your last one either. You are speaking about process and i am talking about grammar. Can you explain?

[thailiketoo]

Therefore the argument the non existent part does not apply. if we were talking about something that was known to not exist then you would be correct. But who would argue than a known non-existent entity exists.

The fact that billions of people believe God exists is certainly a type of evidence for a something instead of a nothing. The fact there are no scientific laws that show something can come from nothing is evidence of a trigger. many people find that to be evidence of a creator God. On top of that you can fill a thousand books with the testimonies of people who firmly believe they have an interactive relationship with God, have experienced miracles, and so on. the sheer volume of these reports points to a something instead of a nothing. So it is not a case of something where there is no evidence. If there was a trial there would be evidence to present. There is evidence. Just not proof, in a form you would accept.

Your entire argument is invalid.

Sorry but you were proved wrong hundreds of years ago. The person claiming existence will always have the burden of proof. If you don't want to play by the rules of logic. Up to you but I, nor anyone else can debate you.

Simply put you are asking me to prove non existence.

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

God exists. Until you can prove otherwise I will continue to believe that he does.

Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

You are being intellectually dishonest if you think that on the topic of God there is no evidence and therefore no logical discussion can be made. there is a massive history of civilizations and culture that believe in a God. In fact atheism has barely existed in comparison; except perhaps in the last century. Stating there is no evidence is like when my wife says she has nothing to wear.

There is a ton of evidence. You just don't believe any of it. That does not make something not exist.

There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

50% of Americans believe that god controls the Superbowl but I'm not going to church to place my bets.

If there is evidence to prove the existence of god feel free to post it. All I'm saying is, "Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something is a logical fallacy. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

[notmyself]

Belief is a quality, stampcollecting is an action,

Some say it is not nice to kick a man when he is down, I say it is the perfect time.

conveniently foot level

I almost sympathize with you, almost. The odds in this thread are unfair, Perhaps if god was to smite a couple of the other guys, me and you could carry this conversation on a more level field.

Belief might not be an action, but the process of arriving at such belief is

As Philatelia is not an action but the process of collecting stumps is.

we may disagree on some issues but we are all friends here. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Confucius said it and Jesus (allegedly) along with others, stole it. Going through some research I have dotted around regarding mentions of virgin birth. Two mentions I know of in Mark and Luke rather than one mentioned earlier so looking back at some of the earlier manuscripts regarding Mark because passages were introduced (forged) late on such as the resurrection narrative 16:9-20. Have a feeling it is going to be two though.

[canuckamuck]

Therefore the argument the non existent part does not apply. if we were talking about something that was known to not exist then you would be correct. But who would argue than a known non-existent entity exists.

The fact that billions of people believe God exists is certainly a type of evidence for a something instead of a nothing. The fact there are no scientific laws that show something can come from nothing is evidence of a trigger. many people find that to be evidence of a creator God. On top of that you can fill a thousand books with the testimonies of people who firmly believe they have an interactive relationship with God, have experienced miracles, and so on. the sheer volume of these reports points to a something instead of a nothing. So it is not a case of something where there is no evidence. If there was a trial there would be evidence to present. There is evidence. Just not proof, in a form you would accept.

Your entire argument is invalid.

Sorry but you were proved wrong hundreds of years ago. The person claiming existence will always have the burden of proof. If you don't want to play by the rules of logic. Up to you but I, nor anyone else can debate you.

Simply put you are asking me to prove non existence.

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

God exists. Until you can prove otherwise I will continue to believe that he does.

Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

You are being intellectually dishonest if you think that on the topic of God there is no evidence and therefore no logical discussion can be made. there is a massive history of civilizations and culture that believe in a God. In fact atheism has barely existed in comparison; except perhaps in the last century. Stating there is no evidence is like when my wife says she has nothing to wear.

There is a ton of evidence. You just don't believe any of it. That does not make something not exist.

There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

50% of Americans believe that god controls the Superbowl but I'm not going to church to place my bets.

If there is evidence to prove the existence of god feel free to post it. All I'm saying is, "Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something is a logical fallacy. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

I never used non-existence cannot be proven as my argument. I have a beef with your logical fallacy argument because it is a cop-out.

Many people make a claim of non-existence, but your logical fallacy argument conveniently removes the burden of proof.

One should not be allowed to make bold claims and then hide behind such an argument. If you believe it to be true then let's hear your best angle. You know it will go nowhere, just like I know my argument will go nowhere with you. But you get to be right by default. Whereas I am required to settled mankind's greatest debate.

[canuckamuck]

we may disagree on some issues but we are all friends here. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Confucius said it and Jesus (allegedly) along with others, stole it. Going through some research I have dotted around regarding mentions of virgin birth. Two mentions I know of in Mark and Luke rather than one mentioned earlier so looking back at some of the earlier manuscripts regarding Mark because passages were introduced (forged) late on such as the resurrection narrative 16:9-20. Have a feeling it is going to be two though.

Matthew and Luke begin before Christ was born, Mark and John begin with John the baptist when Jesus is likely 30 years old.

[notmyself]

we may disagree on some issues but we are all friends here. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Confucius said it and Jesus (allegedly) along with others, stole it. Going through some research I have dotted around regarding mentions of virgin birth. Two mentions I know of in Mark and Luke rather than one mentioned earlier so looking back at some of the earlier manuscripts regarding Mark because passages were introduced (forged) late on such as the resurrection narrative 16:9-20. Have a feeling it is going to be two though.

Matthew and Luke begin before Christ was born, Mark and John begin with John the baptist when Jesus is likely 30 years old.

Talking about when they were written. Mark was certainly first but while John and Matthew seem to have copied exclusively from Mark, Luke copied from both Mark and Matthew's copy. This what I'm looking at and it perhaps why the member posted there was only one mention. Not studied Luke in as much depth as the other three because much of it is certainly manufactured.

[thailiketoo]

I never used non-existence cannot be proven as my argument. I have a beef with your logical fallacy argument because it is a cop-out.

Many people make a claim of non-existence, but your logical fallacy argument conveniently removes the burden of proof.

One should not be allowed to make bold claims and then hide behind such an argument. If you believe it to be true then let's hear your best angle. You know it will go nowhere, just like I know my argument will go nowhere with you. But you get to be right by default. Whereas I am required to settled mankind's greatest debate.

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

It is not me. It is a logical fallacy.

You can take a course on it at most universities.

http://ocw.usu.edu/English/introduction-to-writing-academic-prose/logical-fallacies.html http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18520.0

The academic world threw out your argument in 500BC, I think.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantium

Edited January 26, 2014 by thailiketoo

[sirineou]

I honestly do not understand your point, or your last one either. You are speaking about process and i am talking about grammar. Can you explain?

I am sorry, I thought this was a thread about religion, and an argument about process. If this is a discusion about gramar the as can tell by my posts I loose hands down.

we may disagree on some issues but we are all friends here. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. Confucius said it and Jesus (allegedly) along with others, stole it. Going through some research I have dotted around regarding mentions of virgin birth. Two mentions I know of in Mark and Luke rather than one mentioned earlier so looking back at some of the earlier manuscripts regarding Mark because passages were introduced (forged) late on such as the resurrection narrative 16:9-20. Have a feeling it is going to be two though.

We are friends until the smiting begins, then it's every man for himself.

As to Confucius, I am afraid he also stole it , am sure some one must had said before, somewhere.

I never used non-existence cannot be proven as my argument. I have a beef with your logical fallacy argument because it is a cop-out.

Many people make a claim of non-existence, but your logical fallacy argument conveniently removes the burden of proof.

One should not be allowed to make bold claims and then hide behind such an argument. If you believe it to be true then let's hear your best angle. You know it will go nowhere, just like I know my argument will go nowhere with you. But you get to be right by default. Whereas I am required to settled mankind's greatest debate.

"I never used non-existence cannot be proven as my argument"

That's right we did. what is your counter argument to that?

"Many people make a claim of non-existence,"

If they do they are wrong, But we make no such claim.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you guys make the argument that there is a god, we only say that based of your supporting evidence , we don't believe you

It is as simple as that, we don't believe you ,

I have heard many argument but I have yet to see any evidence, nothing , non, nada.

not even weak evidence, provide some evidence on your claim and I am willing to talk about them, we can evaluate them together, and guess what, maybe you can change my mind,

If what you say is true, I am in danger of burning in hell for eternity

Yet you will not help me, Why wont you help me? don't you like me?

Edited January 26, 2014 by sirineou

[notmyself]

As to Confucius, I am afraid he also stole it , am sure some one must had said before, somewhere.

He said it as an observation of how people behaved rather than a rule people should go by.

[sirineou]

As to Confucius, I am afraid he also stole it , am sure some one must had said before, somewhere.

He said it as an observation of how people behaved rather than a rule people should go by.

I am sure others did not go about doing in to others differently, as they would have liked done to themselves until Confucius came along to say it.