Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[Tomef]

Ah you're trolling, my bad. Please, continue.

You’re just posting random comments that have little to do with the posts you’re responding to.

 

[McBell]

It's special pleading then, only your subjective mental state matters.

You assume to much.

But you haven't even explained what the standards are for you, or why other standards are too low. You just presumed your subjective standards are the valid ones.

My standards are my standards and I have just as much right to set them where ever I like as you have to set yours where ever you like.

Okay this makes sense, you're the type of atheist who doesn't even realize not all theists are omni-monotheists.

Oh my.
Ylu really got my number...
What am I ever to do...

Wait...
Nope, not even close.

I guess? I was an atheist though.

*bites tongue*
**really hard**

Bro you didn't defend that there is a godless universe lol.

I did so.
It was not a very good defense, I admit, but it was a defense.

Being subjectively convinced of something is not a high standard of evidence tbh.


You just keep throwing out the same claim over and over, without explaining why it doesn't meet your subjective standards.

You keep tossing out the word "subjective" as though you think it is meaningful here.
Why is that?
Do you think YOUR standards are not subjective?
What objective standards are you implying about that you feel the need to keep repeating "subjective"?

If you want a better understanding of where I am coming from:

What is Evidence?

Evidence is something religions do not like, because they don't have any. Call it whatever you like, proof, verification, religions don't have any......at all No, we do not have any proof or verification that any God exists or that our religions are true, but we do have evidence. Evidence is...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Alien826]

Yeah, but a definition is not a fact. If that was the case, then God is a fact as this is one defintion of God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

How is it that you don't know how defintions are not facts?
I know it! And yes, I am not religious and an atheist.

I never said it was. A definition in this case is "what I mean when I use a word", "natural" in this case. If you are asking me how I know my definition is factual, it comes from a logical process that I set out in my post. Does that make it factual? No, not absolutely.

 

[Alien826]

Discussing belief is a waste of time. Focus on the actions and their effect on the social collective. And use that criteria to control behavior through the law.

Action -> belief -> action.

You don't think there's value in discussing how/why misinformation is believed (for example)? If you mean simply talking about belief in isolation, then maybe it is a waste of time, but so are lots of things we do to pass the time.

 

[PureX]

Action -> belief -> action.

Belief is not relevant for several reasons, not the least of whiv=ch is that we cannot control the beliefs of others, and debating/arguing/doscussion has virtually no effect except to waste a lot of time and energy for nothing.

You don't think there's value in discussing how/why misinformation is believed (for example)?

No, I don't. Just read these threads. No one ever changes anyone's mind about anything. The argument just drones on and on incessantly while the egos involved cannot relent even of the most obviously nonsensical position.

If you mean simply talking about belief in isolation, then maybe it is a waste of time, but so are lots of things we do to pass the time.

While the city burns.

 

[1137]

You assume to much.

My standards are my standards and I have just as much right to set them where ever I like as you have to set yours where ever you like.

Okay, but you don't seem to treat the standard of others as equal, that's the issue. Personally I think maybe we shouldn't rely on subjectivity to find truth.

You keep tossing out the word "subjective" as though you think it is meaningful here.
Why is that?
Do you think YOUR standards are not subjective?
What objective standards are you implying about that you feel the need to keep repeating "subjective"?

As just mentioned I personally think that when trying to determine truth we use objective standards, such as evidence and logic.

If you want a better understanding of where I am coming from:

What is Evidence?

Evidence is something religions do not like, because they don't have any. Call it whatever you like, proof, verification, religions don't have any......at all No, we do not have any proof or verification that any God exists or that our religions are true, but we do have evidence. Evidence is...

www.religiousforums.com

You just keep repeating and insisting that what's true is whatever you personally find convincing, but yet this is true for everyone.

 

[McBell]

Okay, but you don't seem to treat the standard of others as equal, that's the issue. Personally I think maybe we shouldn't rely on subjectivity to find truth.

Not all standards are equal.
If you take issue with that fact, it is a you problem.

Back to that subjectivity thing again..?
or is it still?

As just mentioned I personally think that when trying to determine truth we use objective standards, such as evidence and logic.

So when are you going to start?

You just keep repeating and insisting that what's true is whatever you personally find convincing, but yet this is true for everyone.

"True for everyone", see, not as subjective as you insist it is, right?

 

[Alien826]

Belief is not relevant for several reasons, not the least of whiv=ch is that we cannot control the beliefs of others, and debating/arguing/doscussion has virtually no effect except to waste a lot of time and energy for nothing.

Alex Jones invented a lie about the Sandy Hook shootings. Some people believed that lie. They then went on to make another group of people miserable.

Are you seriously suggesting that belief had no part in that? If he hadn't lied, there would be no conspiracy theory to believe. If the theory wasn't believed, the persecution of the parents would not have occurred.

Anyway, you now have to people to respond to on the same subject, so I'll leave it to @TagliatelliMonster to continue it, if he wishes.

 

[1137]

Not all standards are equal.
If you take issue with that fact, it is a you problem.

Back to that subjectivity thing again..?
or is it still?

Right, so what makes yours superior, besides the fact that you prefer it?

So when are you going to start?

Me? Over a decade ago, that is why I am no longer an atheist and materialist.

"True for everyone", see, not as subjective as you insist it is, right?

I don't think you understand what subjectivity is tbh. Yes, you are saying your own subjective states should be treated as true for everyone, and this is not reasonable.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe. But when I say ‘god does not exist’, and also I think when those well-known western atheists who are public speakers say it, they mean the god that people read about in religious texts. It’s those ‘gods’, those fictional characters, that the whole debate is about. It’s not about some other idea that we might have if we didn’t have those books. So it’s a positive or negative assertion in relation to those fictional characters, not about the nature of reality. The whole position of religion is a fictional construct, hence any claims about it one way or another cannot be classified as specific propositions about the nature of reality. Religion is only ‘real’ in the sense that it is something people do and think about, and the gods religions invent are only real in the sense of being part of that activity. If I say I don’t believe in man-made climate change, that’s a proposition about the nature of reality; if I say the phantom tollbooth isn’t real, that’s a proposition about a fictional construct, something intentionally created by a person, and the idea of gods falls into the second category.

You are trying hard to preach whatever you learned in the missionary school (the internet school of missionary studies).

I am not interested. Not everyone worships our prophet's we find on the internet with such blind faith repeating what they say losing our logical faculties for life. Rationality says to refer to the OP and respond to it while keeping your sermon to your own community inside your church, synagogue or mosque.

 

[McBell]

Right, so what makes yours superior, besides the fact that you prefer it?

Other than you, who has made the claim that mine are superior?
Sure was not me.

Me? Over a decade ago, that is why I am no longer an atheist and materialist.

I don't think you understand what subjectivity is tbh.

I think you assume to much.

Yes, you are saying your own subjective states should be treated as true for everyone,

When did I make this claim?
Or is this something you merely assumed?

and this is not reasonable.

What is not reasonable is you making assumptions then making false accusations based upon said assumptions.

 

[1137]

Other than you, who has made the claim that mine are superior?
Sure was not me.

I think you assume to much.


When did I make this claim?
Or is this something you merely assumed?


What is not reasonable is you making assumptions then making false accusations based upon said assumptions.

Alright thanks for your time I suppose.

 

[Tomef]

You are trying hard to preach whatever you learned in the missionary school (the internet school of missionary studies).

I am not interested. Not everyone worships our prophet's we find on the internet with such blind faith repeating what they say losing our logical faculties for life. Rationality says to refer to the OP and respond to it while keeping your sermon to your own community inside your church, synagogue or mosque.

It’s not complicated - the gods most of us are familiar with come to us via works of fiction. Debating whether or not they are actually ‘real’ is no different than debating the real existence of any other character in any work of fiction created by other people. It’s just a basic fact - the existence of the Bible, a book written by people, is the only reason any of us have the basic notions we hold about the supposed Judeo-Christian god. Trying to transpose that debate into the world of real things is just daft.

 

[firedragon]

It’s not complicated

Of course not. It's very simple. It's everyday preaching. But it's irrelevant.

 

[McBell]

Alright thanks for your time I suppose.

So you gonna make an accusation then refuse to support said accusation even when flat out asked to support your accusation?

When did I make this claim?​

Or is this something you merely assumed?​

​

What is not reasonable is you making assumptions then making false accusations based upon said assumptions.​

​

 

[1137]

So you gonna make an accusation then refuse to support said accusation even when flat out asked to support your accusation?

When did I make this claim?​

Or is this something you merely assumed?​

​

What is not reasonable is you making assumptions then making false accusations based upon said assumptions.​

​

You have repeatedly stated that theists have a "lower standard" than you and mocked theism.

@firedragon this raises a further thing that bothers me. Do you think if people had true faith in their positive claims they would consistently fall back on trolling, gaslighting, etc?

 

[McBell]

You have repeatedly stated that theists have a "lower standard" than you and mocked theism.

@firedragon this raises a further thing that bothers me. Do you think if people had true faith in their positive claims they would consistently fall back on trolling, gaslighting, etc?

I noticed you did not present a post number that contained the support for your false accusation.

I wonder if you are now claiming that I have made the claim that god does not exist...
You feel free to go through my 54,954 posts and point out when I ever did such a thing.

Or you can just apologize for your false accusations.

 

[1137]

I noticed you did not present a post number that contained the support for your false accusation.

I wonder if you are now claiming that I have made the claim that god does not exist...
You feel free to go through my 54,954 posts and point out when I ever did such a thing.

Or you can just apologize for your false accusations.

Haha post 181

"Outside the wishful thinking of those claiming a deity exists, there is no evidence that a deity exists. Let alone convincing evidence. "

Post 200

"I do not pretend that theists use a much lower standard for evidence than I do. Well, at least when it comes to their beliefs. Most of them seem to have a real problem applying the same standards of evidence to their beliefs that they want others to present for theirs."

Post 247

"Not all standards are equal."

Post 44 where you linked here: What is Evidence?

"The Bible needs to pass my standard for evidence to be considered evidence."

Stop wasting our time.

 

[firedragon]

You have repeatedly stated that theists have a "lower standard" than you and mocked theism.

@firedragon this raises a further thing that bothers me. Do you think if people had true faith in their positive claims they would consistently fall back on trolling, gaslighting, etc?

Absolutely my brother. Just look at the whole thread. Look at the replies. People keep trying their best to derail the thread with some other topic like "does God exist". People keep trying some trick and most of them are found on the internet with "internet missionaries" who are just catering to the crowd to grow their channel. It's rampant.

I will not respond to trolls like this but to you I will directly say that there is a thing called epistemic responsibility. That means in a nutshell, everything I believe must have rational grounding. This particular topic is only about the "positive claim" that "God does not exist". When making that positive claim an Atheist should have "evidence using their epistemology". So if someone's epistemology is empiricism, they should have empirical evidence that "God does not exist".

And to respond to your question directly, if anyone had "true faith" in their beliefs, even as an atheist, you would never in your life build strawman arguments, troll people, or gaslight. Just go back and read this thread. It was a question of a philosophical assertion. A position. And epistemic responsibility. Just look at the number of Atheists who were trying hard to derail the thread. And just look at how they support eachother no matter what the comment was.

It gives testimony to how much everyone could be tribalistic, no matter what you claim your worldview is. The following statement does not have causation data. This could be the reason why hard atheistic regimes like Stalin's and Mao's were the most brutal murdering societies in known human history. And trust me, Atheists will argue that "they were not atheists", or "Stalin just happened to be an atheist", or some other response just like a religious zealot who needs to protect his religion with any and some preaching.

Yet, we have Atheist scientists and philosophers who are genuinely honest and contribute to the world in huge measures. Seriously. The problem remains with the evangelist who don't read genuine Atheist scholarship.

Peace.

 

[McBell]

Haha post 181

"Outside the wishful thinking of those claiming a deity exists, there is no evidence that a deity exists. Let alone convincing evidence. "

Post 200

"I do not pretend that theists use a much lower standard for evidence than I do. Well, at least when it comes to their beliefs. Most of them seem to have a real problem applying the same standards of evidence to their beliefs that they want others to present for theirs."

Post 247

"Not all standards are equal."

Post 44 where you linked here: What is Evidence?

"The Bible needs to pass my standard for evidence to be considered evidence."

Stop wasting our time.

You forgot to post the part where I claimed my standard is the one standard everyone else is also supposed to use.
I know you can not present it, because it was never stated.

Thus it is a false accusation by you.

Am I to assume you are not going to apologize for the falsley accusing me of claiming that my personals standards are some end all be all of standards?

And you have the audacity to imply it is ME who is engaging in trolling and gaslighting....