Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[Tiberius]

They are not skeptics?

I disagree.

They can be skeptics. But that doesn't mean they are making a claim at this point.

Let me be clear: asking someone to support their claim does not mean you think their claim is wrong.

And asking a person to support their claim does not mean you are making a claim yourself.

 

[Willamena]

They can be skeptics. But that doesn't mean they are making a claim at this point.

Let me be clear: asking someone to support their claim does not mean you think their claim is wrong.

And asking a person to support their claim does not mean you are making a claim yourself.

The claim exists regardless of who makes it, who observes it, or who agrees or objects to it.

The claim isn’t theirs alone, it belongs to intellect, and hence is subject to the rules of logic. The burden isn’t any one person’s, it belongs to us all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here's a question.... Atheist will argue about a God they don't believe in...
If you don't believe in something..then it's waste of time to argue about something that you don't believe in..

When a Atheist ask for proof of evidence for the existence of God..
Then the Atheist is called into question by their own question..
The Atheist first has to give proof that God doesn't exist..
Before they can ask for the proof of evidence for the existence of God..

When I'm ask by a Atheist for the proof of evidence for the existence of God..

Then I ask the Atheist...your first called into question by your own question..

Before you can ask me for the proof of evidence for the existence of God..
You first must have the proof of evidence that God doesn't exist..before you can ask anyone for their proof that God exist..
It's that simple..

Faith. That doesn't make sense. Atheist don't believe God exists so you have to give them a definition and support before they can prove to you he doesn't by invalidating your points. If you bring no cards to the table, the opposing side can't "beat you" to the game.

 

[Tiberius]

The claim exists regardless of who makes it, who observes it, or who agrees or objects to it.

The claim isn’t theirs alone, it belongs to intellect, and hence is subject to the rules of logic. The burden isn’t any one person’s, it belongs to us all.

You are missing my point.

If you make a point and I ask you to support your claim, I am not making a claim of my own.

 

[Willamena]

You are missing my point.

If you make a point and I ask you to support your claim, I am not making a claim of my own.

You make a point that, in asking to support a claim, you are not making a claim yourself. "Oh, yeah?" You oversimplify. The rhetoric of the response speaks for itself.

Frankly, any response would only be made because of a dissenting opinion. That's Internet 101.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

 

[Tiberius]

You make a point that, in asking to support a claim, you are not making a claim yourself. "Oh, yeah?" You oversimplify. The rhetoric of the response speaks for itself.

Frankly, any response would only be made because of a dissenting opinion. That's Internet 101.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

You can not assume that just because I ask you to provide support for your claims that I must disagree with you.

 

[Willamena]

You can not assume that just because I ask you to provide support for your claims that I must disagree with you.

Oh yeah? Why do you bother to ask me to provide support for my claim?

Do you disagree?

Or do you have some higher prinicipled purpose?

 

[Sunstone]

If, atheists predetermined that they will NOT accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence / proof -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them ?

Do atheists like the color purple?

 

[Tiberius]

Oh yeah? Why do you bother to ask me to provide support for my claim?

Do you disagree?

Or do you have some higher prinicipled purpose?

I could ask you to support a claim even if I agree with that claim because if you were using a bad argument for it, it could make the argument look weak, and I don't want that.

In any case, your position seems to be little different to the one that says that a person who has committed no crimes has nothing to fear from the police, or a person that is not doing anything wrong has no need for privacy.

You can't conclude that a person who feels unsafe with police is a criminal, you can't conclude that someone who doesn't want you to see what they are doing must be doing something wrong, and you can't conclude that someone who asks you to provide support for your claims thinks those claims are wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Do atheists like the color purple?

I don't mind it, but I can't see what connection that has to the question...

 

[Willamena]

I could ask you to support a claim even if I agree with that claim because if you were using a bad argument for it, it could make the argument look weak, and I don't want that.

Sounds like a skeptic to me.

In any case, your position seems to be little different to the one that says that a person who has committed no crimes has nothing to fear from the police, or a person that is not doing anything wrong has no need for privacy.

You can't conclude that a person who feels unsafe with police is a criminal, you can't conclude that someone who doesn't want you to see what they are doing must be doing something wrong, and you can't conclude that someone who asks you to provide support for your claims thinks those claims are wrong.

I think the last few years of BLM history have proven that a person in North America always has something to fear from police whether or not they have commited crimes, and frankly whatever their race.

I'm struggling to see what this analogy has to do with the burden of proof. The burden exists because of truth, not bias. You can't conclude anything about criminality until a preson is tried.

I'm sorry, I haven't read the preceding thread.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm struggling to see what this analogy has to do with the burden of proof. The burden exists because of truth, not bias. You can't conclude anything about criminality until a preson is tried.

I'm sorry, I haven't read the preceding thread.

Exactly, we are talking about the burden of proof. And the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of whoever makes the claim.

If the burden of proof is on you, then I am entitled to demand you provide that proof. You seem to be under the impression that no one should ever ask for that proof unless they disagree, and that's just plain wrong.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly, we are talking about the burden of proof. And the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of whoever makes the claim.

It rests on the proposed truth, itself. It doesn't matter who proposes it.

If the burden of proof is on you, then I am entitled to demand you provide that proof. You seem to be under the impression that no one should ever ask for that proof unless they disagree, and that's just plain wrong.

You have no such entitlement. The burden exists whether you do or not, whether it is challenged or not. It rests with the claim made.

Asking for proof is all well and fine, as long as you acknowledge the reason you're asking for it. And in the case of "oh, I was just checking if your reasoning agrees with mine," that's just a cop-out.

The burden has, as its determinant, truth. It is the proposed truth that requires proof, not you (or me).

That is to say that the truth and the requisite burden exist objectively, regardless of you or I.

 

[chinu]

Do atheists like the color purple?

I don't why you think that am unnecessarily disturbing your people ?

 

[Jedster]

I don't why you think that am unnecessarily disturbing your people ?

@Sunstone is concerned about his purple atheists friends and other purple people who are being eaten by an eater sent by God.
This song tells it all.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't why you think that am unnecessarily disturbing your people ?

I don't know why you're missing the point.

 

[chinu]

I don't know why you're missing the point.

What point ?

 

[Polymath257]

Oh yeah? Why do you bother to ask me to provide support for my claim?

Do you disagree?

Or do you have some higher prinicipled purpose?

I generally ask for evidence for any claim, whether I would like to agree with it or not.

In fact, if I *like* an idea I tend to want more evidence to support it just so I can be sure I'm not fooling myself.

In general, I would rather not believe something true because of lack of evidence than believe in something false because of poor evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

It rests on the proposed truth, itself. It doesn't matter who proposes it.

And if you propose something to be the truth, you better believe I'm gonna ask you to support it.

You have no such entitlement. The burden exists whether you do or not, whether it is challenged or not. It rests with the claim made.

\

And if someone makes a claim, you better believe I'm gonna ask that person to support it.

Asking for proof is all well and fine, as long as you acknowledge the reason you're asking for it. And in the case of "oh, I was just checking if your reasoning agrees with mine," that's just a cop-out.

No. You can't start complaining about having to bear the burden of proof just because you don't like the reasons why whoever asked you to provide the evidence was asking you for that evidence.

If you make a claim, you must support it. It doesn't matter who asks you to support it.

And if you can't produce a well-reasoned and rational argument to support a claim that you make, then it deserves to be called out, even by people who have the same beliefs you do.

For example, I'm an atheist. But if someone is an atheist because they hate God and feel that God let them down, then I'm gonna call them out on that, because that's not a valid reason to be an atheist.

The burden has, as its determinant, truth. It is the proposed truth that requires proof, not you (or me).

But the claim itself can't provide evidence to support itself, just like it can't proclaim itself. It needs a person to do that. And the person who is required to provide the proof for the claim is the person who makes the claim.

That is to say that the truth and the requisite burden exist objectively, regardless of you or I.

So what? It doesn't matter what the truth is here, we aren't talking about truth, we are talking about claims and who has the responsibility of producing evidence to support those claims.

And I keep telling you that the person who has the responsibility to support a claim that has been made is the person who made the claim in the first place.

You seem to be trying to evade this responsibility by claiming that the only people who can demand evidence for a claim be provided are those who hold opinions counter to the claim that was made. This is not true. It is the responsibility of EVERYONE involved in a discussion to do everything they can to maintain intellectual honesty in that discussion, no matter what side of the argument they are on.

If I see a person in a debate about whether God exists or not, and that person just keeps repeating that God doesn't exist without giving any evidence or reasoning to support his claim, I'm gonna say to him, "Hey, you';re gonna need to make a better argument than that." And I'm on the same side as him!

 

[ppp]

Asking for proof is all well and fine, as long as you acknowledge the reason you're asking for it. And in the case of "oh, I was just checking if your reasoning agrees with mine," that's just a cop-out.

It also applies to court cases, religious claims, philosophical pursuits and scientific endeavors. As a software engineer, I have people explain their reasoning for reaching their conclusions on a daily basis. Even when I agree with them.

I do not know whether or not it is possible to build a device that will move a living human from one point to another faster than the speed of light. If someone tells me that it is, I am going to demand evidence before I take their claim seriously. I am not going to accept that claim until they do. That doesn't mean that I think that the claim is false. I have no reason to believe that anyone knows or has the ability to know whether or not a faster than light travel is possible.

Same thing with a god. I have no reason to believe that anyone knows or has the ability to know whether or not a god exist. So when someone claims that they are justified in such a belief, I ask for evidence. I don't see any cop-out there.