-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do Atheists mean about No Evidence for God
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
As I pointed out earlier, sniper, in a conversation with tristesse, what matters is how tristesse defines atheism. tristesse is not obliged to be consistent with someone else's definition. So to contradict him (or her, I forget) self, tristesse would have to violate his or her own definition, not one that you found on some online dictionary.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Do you have a quote from me, or a retraction?
Do you still think living your life, choosing your medical treatment and investments based on no evidence is a good idea?
I find that with Christians, it often works best to require them to answer my questions before addressing theirs.
btw, since you can't prove that Allah and Vishnu don't exist, I assume you believe in them as well?
The definition of an atheist is someone who rejects the belief in a god or gods. How am I contradicting myself? The belief that no gods exist is strong atheism or anti-theism.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Why not? Don't you believe in God until someone proves He does not exist? Or does this only apply to the God you were brought up to worship? Double-standard?
I see you chose option #3, sacrifice your credibility. I value my word, and take offense at someone who impugns it without evidence. Congratulations, your pride just caused you to lose your credibility here.
It's not so hard, all it takes is enough humility to admit a mistake. But then, Christians are so rarely able to demonstrate humility.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Please stop lying about me. Please present two sentences in which I contradict myself.
Yes, I advocate evidence. I advocate living your life based on evidence. I advocate this consistently, in all areas, including not only religion, but medicine, automotive repair, investment planning, and making allegations about other people. Please show how this contradicts anything I have said.
You said that I am always asking for proof of God. This is false, I have never done so. If it is true, you should be able to quote the post where I did so. If it is false, any honest, decent, humble person would just admit their error. A really good person would apologize for it.
On the contrary, I listen all too well.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
sniper: I'm starting to feel sorry for you, like a heavy-weight boxing a welter weight. I feel bad. May I ask how old you are?
sniper762
Well-Known Member
auto, regardless of your twisted conception of the meaning of evidence, it IS what provides PROOF
asking for it is ALL you have. the evidence that you demand from me is also demanded of you.
it seems like neither of us can supply it, so looks like we have a draw. back to square 1.
asking for it is ALL you have. the evidence that you demand from me is also demanded of you.
it seems like neither of us can supply it, so looks like we have a draw. back to square 1.
Ok sniper, if someone came to you and said there are pink leprechauns that fold his laundry and put it away for him. And your response, as it rightly should be, is I don't believe you. Do you have a burden of proof?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Unlike you, I guard my credibility, so in any swearing match between us, you lose. That's what happens to people who are too proud to correct their mistakes.
I'll explain the difference. It's a bit technical. "Proof" means absolute, irrefutable, rock solid, can't be controverted, shown to be true. The expression is that proof is for math and whiskey. Also formal logic. You either have it or you don't. It's theoretical or abstract.
Evidence is empirical, and always subject to further evidence. It's more of a scale, from weak to strong, but is always subject to being corrected, changed or even overthrown by further evidence. You can have a little, some, a lot, or overwhelming evidence.
The only part where it gets tricky is when the evidence is so overwhelming that any reasonable person would accept it, as for example that the earth is round. That could also be called "proof," but it's not perfectly accurate to use the world this way.
I'm not much about proof. I'm all about evidence.
Religionists often conflate or confuse them, because so little in life is absolutely proven. So they say, in effect, because you can't prove things, you may as well believe any old thing.
Those of us with an empirical, or scientific view, think it makes sense to believe what the evidence most strongly supports at this time, and change our minds if more evidence comes to light and warrants it.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
sniper: Is it your position that you should believe in every supernatural being whose existence cannot be disproven?
sniper762
Well-Known Member
Ok sniper, if someone came to you and said there are pink leprechauns that fold his laundry and put it away for him. And your response, as it rightly should be, is I don't believe you. Do you have a burden of proof?
if i refute his claim, yes....and if that someone is expecting me to believe him, then the burden of proof is on him. draw again
and btw, your lengthy definition of evidence reiterates the fact that you havent provided any. sorry, you lose
if i refute his claim, yes....and if that someone is expecting me to believe him, then the burden of proof is on him. draw again
and btw, your lengthy definition of evidence reiterates the fact that you havent provided any. sorry, you lose
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
How would you refute his claim? If I say I have an invisible elf in my pocket, how can you refute my claim? Do you have evidence that I don't?
No, I haven't. I do think it would make an interesting thread, but it's irrelevant here. Do you see why?
sniper: Now that you have lost all your credibility, you will need to find external sources to to support your claims. Your own word is not good enough. You have shown yourself to be less than honest--never a good thing, especially on an internet discussion board.
Would you like a lesson on how to use the quote function?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
so sniper: What does your religion have to say about telling lies about other people? Do you consider that to be moral?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
sniper: For the third time: Is it your position that a person should believe in all supernatural beings unless you can disprove their existence?
I never said if you refute his claim. We're talking about where the burden of proof lies. He made a claim, you don't believe him, the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim, not the one who doesn't believe.
sniper762
Well-Known Member
How would you refute his claim? If I say I have an invisible elf in my pocket, how can you refute my claim? Do you have evidence that I don't?
am i suppose to believe him? demand that he produce the elf, i would.
where is your elf? now who's the liar?
you say: No, I haven't. I do think it would make an interesting thread, but it's irrelevant here. Do you see why?
IRRELEVANT? then why do you keep asking for it? again, contradicting youself
btw, i can see that i am intimidating you. name calling? childish, why dont you just take your toys and go home?
am i suppose to believe him? demand that he produce the elf, i would.
where is your elf? now who's the liar?
you say: No, I haven't. I do think it would make an interesting thread, but it's irrelevant here. Do you see why?
IRRELEVANT? then why do you keep asking for it? again, contradicting youself
btw, i can see that i am intimidating you. name calling? childish, why dont you just take your toys and go home?