To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

[Kilgore Trout]

I have a scenario for everyone to gawk at:

You claim you have a magic wand that can turn lead into gold. Someone disbelieves you. How do you prove you are telling the truth?

Turn enough lead into gold to buy the company they work for, and then fire them.

 

[McBell]

You claim you have a magic wand that can turn lead into gold. Someone disbelieves you. How do you prove you are telling the truth?

Turn enough lead into gold to buy the company they work for, and then fire them.

I like it!

 

[McBell]

You claim you have a magic wand that can turn lead into gold. Someone disbelieves you. How do you prove you are telling the truth?

I do not have to prove it.
If they cannot take it on faith that I have a wand that turns lead into gold, they will just have to burn in hell for all eternity.

Don't like it?
Well, talk to the wand.



Besides, I made the statement.
And the statement is true as toasted toads until it is proven false.

 

[Alceste]

I have a scenario for everyone to gawk at:

You claim you have a magic wand that can turn lead into gold. Someone disbelieves you. How do you prove you are telling the truth?

You don't: First you tell them to prove their disbelief is correct. Then when they press you for the details of your factual claim in order to comply, you refuse to define "gold", "lead" and "magic wand", or share the process by which you accomplish the feat, saying instead that it could be ANYTHING turning ANYTHING into ANYTHING - the burden of proof is still on the disbeliever, and all factual claims are equally valid regardless of the specifics.

Then you get huffy and start insulting people.

Et voila! You've completely circumvented your obligation to back up your claim with evidence.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I do not have to prove it.
If they cannot take it on faith that I have a wand that turns lead into gold, they will just have to burn in hell for all eternity.

Don't like it?
Well, talk to the wand.



Besides, I made the statement.
And the statement is true as toasted toads until it is proven false.

Impeccable logic! Even I cannot contend with it, despite my username.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You don't: First you tell them to prove their disbelief is correct. Then when they press you for the details of your factual claim in order to comply, you refuse to define "gold", "lead" and "magic wand", or share the process by which you accomplish the feat, saying instead that it could be ANYTHING turning ANYTHING into ANYTHING - the burden of proof is still on the disbeliever, and all factual claims are equally valid regardless of the specifics.

Then you get huffy and start insulting people.

Et voila! You've completely circumvented your obligation to back up your claim with evidence.

You've done this before, haven't you?

 

[DarkSun]

Still missing the point, I see. Make some claim about something you think YOUR god did, and I will probably be able to find you some empirical evidence s/he did not do it - depending on what you think s/he did. "God the laws-of-physics writer" can't be rationally accepted or rejected because it is completely irrelevant whether the laws of physics were "written" or are inherent properties of matter and energy: The empirical evidence we would see in front of us would be the same either way.

What I'm saying isn't limited to my perception of God.

The point you are missing: FIRST you must make a claim and present your evidence. THEN the atheist will decide whether to accept or reject your claim based on your evidence. The atheist must only provide evidence of her own if she makes a counter-claim.

You are making the claim: "God does not exist" based on a lack of evidence. I could very well say the same thing

FYI, there is no "experimental evidence" of the non-existence of leprechauns. For most of us it is enough that nobody has ever seen or interacted with one.

If you want to go to that extreme, yes, belief in leprechauns is equally justified to disbelief, because there is no evidence either way. A lot of people will be skeptical, but this isn't based on evidence, it's based on what makes sense to them.

BTW, I think a lot of people here are trying to use examples of things which most people disagree with, and assuming that makes it more justified to disbelieve such a thing. I have two issues with this: first, whether most people agree with it or not has no bearing on whether it should be considered true, and second, just because something makes no sense to you (ie, sounds insane), doesn't mean disbelieving is more justified unless you have evidence to back up your opinion. . . which you don't.

And no, a lack of evidence does not count as evidence against something. A lack of evidence for black swans does not count as evidence for the nonexistence of black swans.

Rejecting a non-evidenced factual claim. (Like leprechauns).

Stop using the redundant examples of pixies and leprechauns. They don't conflict with my argument in the slightest, and that aside, it's starting to get slightly frustrating to have to keep repeating why it doesn't conflict with anything I've said. Could someone please tally the number of times I have responded to this statement?

Oh... and by the way. Here's me, rejecting the non-evidenced claim of God's non-existence.

Way to totally miss the point AGAIN. You are arguing that his belief that he can fly is exactly as reasonable and rational as disbelief would be. (No, I'm not) Most of us don't need to get hopped up on drugs and jump out a window to prove we can't fly: it is enough for us that nobody ever has.

I think you need to calm down a bit.

By the way, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that belief and disbelief in something is equally justified if there is no evidence either way. What you have done is presented a situation where evidence against the fact that "he can fly" is actually obtainable. With God, it isn't.

Nice strawman, though.

And also, please stop using scenario's where people are affected by drugs before-hand. Like the Leprechaun-pixie-manbearpig references, they don't go against what I'm saying.

I have. It is enough for me that nobody has ever seen one.

Your perception of the world does not account for the entire human population.

 

[DarkSun]

You don't: First you tell them to prove their disbelief is correct. Then when they press you for the details of your factual claim in order to comply, you refuse to define "gold", "lead" and "magic wand", or share the process by which you accomplish the feat, saying instead that it could be ANYTHING turning ANYTHING into ANYTHING - the burden of proof is still on the disbeliever, and all factual claims are equally valid regardless of the specifics.

Then you get huffy and start insulting people.

Et voila! You've completely circumvented your obligation to back up your claim with evidence.

I'd like it to be noted that I haven't insulted anyone yet.

Reread the some of MBall's posts, and a few of Mestemia's, and you'll find it's actually been the other way around.

 

[DarkSun]

Nice try, but not quite.

Okay, now the burden of evidence rests on you.

Please explain why I'm not quite right.

 

[DarkSun]

And you want us to "lose the belligerent, sarcastic attitude"? That's some nerve you've got there.

That wasn't sarcastic or belligerent.

 

[Magic Man]

What I'm saying isn't limited to my perception of God.

Yes, we know. You want it to apply to any and every form of god imaginable.

You are making the claim: "God does not exist" based on a lack of evidence. I could very well say the same thing.

To make the claim that God doesn't exist, someone has to first make the claim that God does exist. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, i.e. "God does exist". The default position on anything is disbelief. We tend to only believe things when presented with evidence of them. For instance, you would not believe me if I told you that for a pet I have a four-foot-tall, purple rat that lives on Ibuprofen. I'd have to provide the evidence for that claim for it to be taken seriously. For you to not take it seriously, you have to do nothing.

So, you could say the same thing to us, but it would be stupid and pointless.

If you want to go to that extreme, yes, belief in Leprechauns is equally justified to disbelief, because there is no evidence either way.

Yes, yes, we know, you want to call it an extreme. It's not an extreme, it's just another example of what you're talking about. It's just an easy example to discuss. Besides, you're missing the main point. Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Going back to the rat example, from what you know of the world, such a thing cannot exist. You disbelieve the claim because of your prior knowledge of the world and from the fact that you've never seen or heard of anything like it.

A lot of people will be skeptical, but this isn't based on evidence, it's based on what makes sense to them.

Because "what makes sense to them" is another way of saying "what's rational and reasonable considering what we know about the universe".

BTW, I think a lot of people here are trying to use examples of things which most people disagree with, and assuming that makes it more justified to disbelieve such a thing. I have two issues with this: first, whether most people agree with it or not has no baring on whether it should be considered true, and second, just because something makes no sense to you (ie, sounds insane), doesn't mean disbelieving is more justified unless you have evidence to back up your opinion. . . which you don't.

That's true. That's why no one is saying that leprechauns don't exist because most people believe they don't.

Yes, whether or not anyone else believes something has no bearing on whether or not it's true. We're not using examples to appeal to authority. We're using certain examples because they easily and plainly demonstrate our point and why you're wrong.

You also need to stop with the whole "makes sense to you" thing. Disbelieving in leprechauns isn't a matter of making sense to me or not. It's a matter of fitting in with all of the knowledge humans have about the universe. I disbelieve that the sun is going to blow up tomorrow because of the knowledge we have about the universe. In the same way, I disbelieve that leprechauns exist because of the knowledge we have about the universe.

And no, a lack of evidence does not count as evidence against something. A lack of evidence for black swans does not count as evidence for the nonexistence of black swans.

Um...yes, it does, at least when you've made a good active search for the something.

Stop using the redundant examples of pixies and leprechauns. They don't conflict with my argument in the slightest, and that aside, it's starting to get slightly frustrating to have to keep repeating why it doesn't conflict with anything I've said. Could someone please tally the number of times I have responded to this statement?

Gee, you think there's a reason you've had to try to explain something over and over to several different people? I mean, it couldn't be because you're missing something and you're wrong, could it? Nah, it must be some kind of deficiency in the people you're talking to.

We're using those examples because they're easy ones to point out the flaws in your argument. The fact that you can't even see those flaws when they're that obvious is telling.

Oh... and by the way. Here's me, rejecting the non-evidenced claim of God's non-existence.

Good for you. Now, if you'd like to go back and actually understand the argument that was just made that you responded to, you'll find out why this comment by you is stupid and ridiculous.

I think you need to calm down a bit.

It's kind of tough when dealing with someone who simply refuses to admit they're wrong and goes to great lengths to twist things and rationalize in order to avoid admitting it.

By the way, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that belief and disbelief in something is equally justified if there is no evidence either way. What you have done is presented a situation where evidence against the fact that "he can fly" is actually obtainable. With God, it isn't.

Yes, it is. That's why we ask for your definition of God. That way we can tell whether any evidence can be obtained concerning it. You can refuse to make any claims about God, but that's pretty childish. That's why we use the default theistic version of God. There are claims made about that version that can be shown to be false.

Your perception of the world does not account for the entire human population.

That's true. However, the perception of the entire human population accounts for the entire human population. Of course, I'll amend my statement if you can come up with a human who claims to have seen a leprechaun.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd like it to be noted that I haven't insulted anyone yet.

Reread the some of MBall's posts, and a few of Mestemia's, and you'll find it's actually been the other way around.

It doesn't help that you so blatantly think your **** doesn't stink, but think everyone else's is putrid.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay, now the burden of evidence rests on you.

Actually, it doesn't, but I'll play along.

Please explain why I'm not quite right.

That analogy doesn't work in this case. It doesn't even make sense in this case. In the case where it's used correctly, to point out that atheism is not a belief structure, it's very comparable. Not believing in God equates nicely to not collecting stamps. In both cases you're not actively doing something. Then, a hobby equates well to a belief structure.

In the way you're trying to use it, nothing equates to anything else that way, which is what makes an analogy good or useful.

 

[Magic Man]

That wasn't sarcastic or belligerent.

Of course not, because you said it. We all know that it's impossible for anything you say to be anything but courteous and polite, while it's not only possible but likely for something we say to be sarcastic or belligerent.

Again, you need to realize that your **** stinks just as bad as the rest of us.

 

[DarkSun]

Of course not, because you said it. We all know that it's impossible for anything you say to be anything but courteous and polite, while it's not only possible but likely for something we say to be sarcastic or belligerent.

Again, you need to realize that your **** stinks just as bad as the rest of us.

Lol.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hang on there mball, I basically agree with your arguments but I also think the personal insinuations are way out of line. You and I do not see eye-to-eye with DarkSun. It's okay. Relax.

 

[Kenect2]

There can be evidence for, but not for non existence.

There can be evidence for the "nonexistence" of a thing. Any evidence for a mutually exclusive alternative explanation would qualify.

For example, if my friend called to say that he found a purple swan in New Zealand, and then his wife called and told me that he was lying about the purple swan, the the wife's claim would qualify as evidence for the non existence of the purple swan. Whether or not the wife's claim is good or bad evidence might be open for discussion, but it is certainly "evidence for non existence."

 

[Kenect2]

How can I define something I don't understand? It's not as if I'm deliberately being vague. It's just that I don't really know what exact attributes God has.

When you believe in something that you don't understand, aren't you committing the fallacy of jumping to conclusions?

I know a little about the Big Bang hypothesis. From what I understand, it is the best explanation for Hubble's Law, which I do believe. However, I don't understand the Big Bang (specifically, how it got into the original state), and therefore, I don't jump to the conclusion that it actually happened.

 

[Magic Man]

Hang on there mball, I basically agree with your arguments but I also think the personal insinuations are way out of line.

What personal insinuations?

You and I do not see eye-to-eye with DarkSun. It's okay. Relax.

I'm relaxed, just a little annoyed at how many times I've explained the same thing, and he still refuses to listen.

Although I do hate the whole idea "we don't see eye to eye". This isn't like "Hey, I like Ac/DC." "Oh, I think they're horrible." This isn't about opinions. It's about facts.

 

[Magic Man]

I know a little about the Big Bang hypothesis. From what I understand, it is the best explanation for Hubble's Law, which I do believe. However, I don't understand the Big Bang (specifically, how it got into the original state), and therefore, I don't jump to the conclusion that it actually happened.

The big bang model says nothing about how things were or what happened before the big bang. It doesn't comment on how things got into "the original state". To accept the theory, how things got the way they were before the big bang doesn't factor in.

It's like evolution and the big bang. You don't have to accept the big bang to accept evolution. It doesn't really matter how the first lifeform came to be or why the conditions were the way they were. All that matters for evolution is what happened after the first lifeform formed. In the same way, you don't have to accept what they say led up to the big bang to accept the big bang.