Mocking Those of Faith

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

SimpleThunda':

As long as you can't disprove the existence of god, you have just as much right to say God doesn't exist, as they have to say God does exist.

Actually I'd say this is both true and untrue.

It is true in the sense you are equally justified in saying either statement.

It is untrue in the sense, that justification to say either statement is none at all. At least, if you care about intellectual integrity and honesty. There is simply nothing to go by, to arrive at any definitive or even tentative conclusion.

If you cannot disprove the existence of X, and no objective evidence for X exists, technically speaking all you are justified in saying is "the claim 'X exists' has not met its burned of proof" and the route to go with is one of disbelief pending further evidence.

Commonly problems of course begin when people falsely insist personal revelation is objective evidence, or that disbelief in X is the same as believing the opposite of X. Or that (dis)believing X also means you must reject/accept unconnected issue Y.

SimpleThunda':

itsthesheppy:

SimpleThunda':

As long as you can't disprove the existence of god, you have just as much right to say God doesn't exist, as they have to say God does exist.

I'm going to add to the dogpile here and repeat points other have made and I don't care. You obviously don't understand how the burden of proof works.

Nor do you, apparently.

It goes both ways.

I can only assume that you are confused, or in some sort of panic-mode, because you replied to my post twice, different ways both times. You first accused 'burden of proof' as a "forum concept" (whatever that means) and then accused me of not understanding what it means while not really hinting why you would make such an accusation.

Burden of proof is on the positive claim. If you make a claim and other people hear it, it is their right to demand proof of that claim. It is not incumbent on them to provide proof that the claim is NOT true. That is why in our court system, innocence is assumed until guilt is proven, not the other way around.

It's not a forum concept. It's a cornerstone of reasoned conversation. If I tell you that I can transform into a unicorn, you are under no obligation to take me seriously unless I prove to you I have that power. It is not you job to prove that I cannot; such a thing cannot be proven, because I can just fold my arms and be difficult and say I just don't feel like performing my magic trick right now. Reasoned conversation would not be possible unless we all agreed who has the burden of proof.

The only place in our global discourse where this breaks down is religion. Small wonder religion compels people to act unreasonably.

SakSak:

SimpleThunda':

As long as you can't disprove the existence of god, you have just as much right to say God doesn't exist, as they have to say God does exist.

Actually I'd say this is both true and untrue.

It is true in the sense you are equally justified in saying either statement.

It is untrue in the sense, that justification to say either statement is none at all. At least, if you care about intellectual integrity and honesty. There is simply nothing to go by, to arrive at any definitive or even tentative conclusion.

If you cannot disprove the existence of X, and no objective evidence for X exists, technically speaking all you are justified in saying is "the claim 'X exists' has not met its burned of proof" and the route to go with is one of disbelief pending further evidence.

Commonly problems of course begin when people falsely insist personal revelation is objective evidence, or that disbelief in X is the same as believing the opposite of X. Or that (dis)believing X also means you must reject/accept unconnected issue Y.

The idea is;

Theists are wrong by stating as a fact that God exists.

But as an atheist, don't make the same mistake by stating as a fact that God doesn't exist.

itsthesheppy:

SimpleThunda':

itsthesheppy:

I'm going to add to the dogpile here and repeat points other have made and I don't care. You obviously don't understand how the burden of proof works.

Nor do you, apparently.

It goes both ways.

I can only assume that you are confused, or in some sort of panic-mode, because you replied to my post twice, different ways both times. You first accused 'burden of proof' as a "forum concept" (whatever that means) and then accused me of not understanding what it means while not really hinting why you would make such an accusation.

Burden of proof is on the positive claim. If you make a claim and other people hear it, it is their right to demand proof of that claim. It is not incumbent on them to provide proof that the claim is NOT true. That is why in our court system, innocence is assumed until guilt is proven, not the other way around.

It's not a forum concept. It's a cornerstone of reasoned conversation. If I tell you that I can transform into a unicorn, you are under no obligation to take me seriously unless I prove to you I have that power. It is not you job to prove that I cannot; such a thing cannot be proven, because I can just fold my arms and be difficult and say I just don't feel like performing my magic trick right now. Reasoned conversation would not be possible unless we all agreed who has the burden of proof.

The only place in our global discourse where this breaks down is religion. Small wonder religion compels people to act unreasonably.

Yes. Something went wrong trying to reply to your post.

Either way, it works both ways because:
Stating that god exists means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.
Stating that god doesn't exist, ALSO means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

Thus, don't state either thing about god.

Which was my point to begin with.

SimpleThunda':

Stating that god doesn't exist, ALSO means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

I have to "prove" that he doesn't exist just as much as you have to "prove" that invisible wizards don't exist.

Essentially, we can't state that their existence is impossible. But, due to complete lack of evidence, we can apply a negligible probability, which is (to all intents and purposes) the same.

The same rule applies to God as does fairies, chimeras, and wizards. The lack of evidence for IS evidence against.

SimpleThunda':

Either way, it works both ways because:
Stating that god exists means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

God's existence (apparently) cannot be proven, this is true. God's existence therefor holds equal weight as the existence of faeries, unicorns and Harry Potter. This is why we treat god claims as imaginary, and ridicule them as such, because grown adults who hold ridiculous beliefs warrant ridicule for them.

Stating that god doesn't exist, ALSO means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

You clearly didn't read or understand my post where I patiently and thoroughly explained to you what burden of proof is and how it works in rational discourse. I suggest perhaps that you read it again. There is no burden of proof on the negative claim.

Furthermore, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding about what atheism is. Atheism is the "lack of belief in a god". It's not a claim. I'm not saying that god doesn't exist. I'm saying god has not been demonstrated to exist, so until such existence is proven I am treating god as imaginary. Same thing I do with ghosts and psychics and the loch ness monster. All imaginary claims with equal credence as the god claim.

SimpleThunda':

itsthesheppy:

SimpleThunda':

Nor do you, apparently.

It goes both ways.

I can only assume that you are confused, or in some sort of panic-mode, because you replied to my post twice, different ways both times. You first accused 'burden of proof' as a "forum concept" (whatever that means) and then accused me of not understanding what it means while not really hinting why you would make such an accusation.

Burden of proof is on the positive claim. If you make a claim and other people hear it, it is their right to demand proof of that claim. It is not incumbent on them to provide proof that the claim is NOT true. That is why in our court system, innocence is assumed until guilt is proven, not the other way around.

It's not a forum concept. It's a cornerstone of reasoned conversation. If I tell you that I can transform into a unicorn, you are under no obligation to take me seriously unless I prove to you I have that power. It is not you job to prove that I cannot; such a thing cannot be proven, because I can just fold my arms and be difficult and say I just don't feel like performing my magic trick right now. Reasoned conversation would not be possible unless we all agreed who has the burden of proof.

The only place in our global discourse where this breaks down is religion. Small wonder religion compels people to act unreasonably.

Yes. Something went wrong trying to reply to your post.

Either way, it works both ways because:
Stating that god exists means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.
Stating that god doesn't exist, ALSO means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

Thus, don't state either thing about god.

Which was my point to begin with.

Thing is, the atheist position is the default position, the null hypothesis, the starting point, the base, whatever you might want to call it. There is no reason to posit a thing's existence without some evidence of it.

It requires effort (read: proof) to move from this position. To maintain it does not.

You can't make chemical compounds with scripture but you cannot fill every heart and community using graduated cylinders.

Our ancestors disputed and warred for thousands of years and got no where. Learn to love each other or this spark of evolution is not going to endure. Reason is wasted on the ignorant.

AgedGrunt:
you cannot fill every heart and community using graduated cylinders.

No, but you can with reasoned and humanist ideals, ideals antithetical to most of the religious doctrines of the world.

The progress we've made will be maintained by fighting against the never-ending efforts of the Churches to undermine it, not by accepting them. I speak here of the Churches, note, not personal belief.

RJ 17:

UPDATE:
Seems the genreal concensus of responses that I've been getting is that it's perfectly fine to make fun of these people because they chose their religion where as things such as sexuality and race are things that aren't chosen. This means that it's apparently ok to make fun of people who are different, so long as they're different for reasons they choose themselves. And evidently I'm the only one that sees that as hypocritical.

Thank you, my fellow escapists, for this little social survey. The results have been most enlightening. I didn't realize that the way someone differs from you is the key point to consider when determining whether or not it's alright to openly mock someone. Different by sexuality, race, etc: off limits. Different by beliefs: lol they're fucking morons lol!

Unfortunately yes. As long as people think that they are absolutely correct about something that is non-definite like politics, religion, games, or music there is gonna be a lot of people just doing whatever is possible to make the other side look bad, even if they know its incorrect.

SimpleThunda':

But as an atheist, don't make the same mistake by stating as a fact that God doesn't exist.

Thankfully, you are talking of a small subset of atheists here, which I shall refer to as Strong Atheists (as opposed to atheists in general).

As a general rule, all you can infer from someone stating they're an atheist is precisely the rejection of a positive claim one way or another. Because rejection of the claim "At least one god exists" is the one and only criteria for someone to be an atheist. Someone claiming "No gods exist" is a true claim is a strong atheist.

The reason religious people get mocked so much more than strong atheists, is commonly caused by two reasons:
1) the strong atheists do no go around claiming that educational standards need to be changed, or laws created/abolished, or evidence ignored, or discrimination against societal groups be encouraged, or favouritism shown to particular religions based on nothing but the say-so of persons belonging to such religions
2) in the western world, theists who go around making ridiculous claims or acting in a ridiculous manner outnumber the strong atheists by quite a wide marigin.

RJ 17:
UPDATE:
Seems the genreal concensus of responses that I've been getting is that it's perfectly fine to make fun of these people because they chose their religion where as things such as sexuality and race are things that aren't chosen. This means that it's apparently ok to make fun of people who are different, so long as they're different for reasons they choose themselves. And evidently I'm the only one that sees that as hypocritical.

Thank you, my fellow escapists, for this little social survey. The results have been most enlightening. I didn't realize that the way someone differs from you is the key point to consider when determining whether or not it's alright to openly mock someone. Different by sexuality, race, etc: off limits. Different by beliefs: lol they're fucking morons lol!

Yup, and it's not just limited to religious belief, either.

If someone believes a guy shouldn't wear pink because that's a 'girl's colour' then will I think they're a moron? Yes indeedy.

If someone thinks that black people are naturally inferior to white people, will I think they're a moron? You betcha.

If someone thinks that disabled people are born that way because they're bad people and they deserve it, will I think they're a moron? Oh yes sirree.

None of those beliefs are (necessarily) religious. Your example of someone freaking out over a number I would actually have much less of a problem with than those beliefs. But you yourself said that it is still 'silly' and I don't get that, you basically went 'Yes, I know it's silly, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SAY IT'S SILLY.' If you were trying to make a similar argument against the persecution of homosexuals, for example, you'd only be able to make this kind of argument if you came from the initial standpoint that the persecution had a point. Like: 'Yes, I know it's vile and unnatural, BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SAY IT'S VILE AND UNNATURAL.' But you're not allowed to say it's vile and unnatural because it ISN'T vile and unnatural, whereas certain beliefs, like the one that you described, ARE silly (like you yourself said!), moronic, and sometimes downright harmful.

Having said all this, I don't think that it's right to mock people straight off the bat for believing 'silly' things because I think that we don't have complete control over what we believe, we mostly just take what we are taught and base our ideas on that. There are exceptions in cases where a person's belief makes things easier for them (like believing that they are superior to a different group of people) but this wouldn't apply in a case where a person's fear of a number is hindering their life. HOWEVER, once a person has been exposed to evidence that counters their belief, they have the choice to at least question their belief, and it is harder to keep patience with them if they dismiss the evidence entirely.

I mean, I feel entirely the same about people who've posted 'I got this message and if I don't repost it my dog will die' messages, and you can point out that you've never reposted it and your dog is perfectly fine but they'll still go 'BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY.' And at that point I think you're well within your rights to think they're being stupid. And again, that's not a religious thing, superstitions in general tend to be mocked, religious or not.

RJ 17:
UPDATE:
Seems the genreal concensus of responses that I've been getting is that it's perfectly fine to make fun of these people because they chose their religion where as things such as sexuality and race are things that aren't chosen. This means that it's apparently ok to make fun of people who are different, so long as they're different for reasons they choose themselves. And evidently I'm the only one that sees that as hypocritical.

I take it you respect Nazis and find it equally offensive to mock Nazi ideology then?

Because mocking the beliefs of someone who supports sexism, racism, genocide, hatred etc is just as bad as mocking someone because of the colour of their skin?

(lolyesIdungodwinned)

Here's a more important thought then whether it's right or not.

Mocking is completely, fucking, useless, when it comes to changing peoples mind. If you mock someone, you put them on the defensive, you attack them and they withdraw into their shell and are FAR LESS LIKELY to actually change their mind.

So all mocking does is attack someone with no real goal in mind other then to make them feel bad and withdraw to a defensive posture.

Silvanus:

AgedGrunt:
you cannot fill every heart and community using graduated cylinders.

No, but you can with reasoned and humanist ideals, ideals antithetical to most of the religious doctrines of the world.

The progress we've made will be maintained by fighting against the never-ending efforts of the Churches to undermine it, not by accepting them. I speak here of the Churches, note, not personal belief.

So you wage war with your fellow man in the name of "humanist ideals". Do you hear yourself?

Peaceful religions are about humanity, welfare and values, by the way. Where do you think most of it was derived? Didn't come from the scientific method.

AgedGrunt:

So you wage war with your fellow man in the name of "humanist ideals". Do you hear yourself?

Peaceful religions are about humanity, welfare and values, by the way. Where do you think most of it was derived? Didn't come from the scientific method.

How am I "waging war"? I'm debating on the internet. Just like I'll disagree openly with Homeopaths, Scientologists, or those of different political persuasions, I'll disagree openly with the devout. I genuinely believe that disagreement and debate are pretty vital to the mind.

Humanity & welfare were around long before the Torah and the Bible, and are not derived from superstition. Gender equality and tolerance of the LGBT-community come from actively disavowing what the Church preaches, for two.

boots:

[quote="RJ 17" post="528.400475.16458379"]
Thank you, my fellow escapists, for this little social survey. The results have been most enlightening. I didn't realize that the way someone differs from you is the key point to consider when determining whether or not it's alright to openly mock someone. Different by sexuality, race, etc: off limits. Different by beliefs: lol they're fucking morons lol!

I was going to explain to you the difference between sexuality/race and beliefs, but then I got to wondering if you can figure out the difference all by yourself. Ten points if you can. Puzzle it over.

I'm guessing you gave up on this little riddle. Don't worry, it's quite a tricky one.

The difference is that sexuality and race are not things that people get to choose. You cannot wake up one day and decide to be Asian because you read a book by an Asian and liked it. Likewise, if you're born gay then you can't just decide that it's too much hassle and decide to be straight instead. People are what they are, and to ridicule them for something that they have no control over is dickish.

Religion, on the other hand, is something that you choose. Not only do people choose to be religious, a lot of them also try to force others to make the same decision, and condemn them for not doing so. Now I have nothing against someone who is simply content to believe in God themselves, but the second they start telling other people that they're going to hell, committing hate crimes or making hate speech against those who their religions deems to be "unholy", or trying to force religion into government law - then they deserve as much ridicule as they get.

And if someone claims to be religious and then carries on with the kind of behaviour that is completely contrary to what their religion teaches, then don't call me "insensitive" for pointing out their hypocrisy. For some reason, a hell of a lot of Christians seem to have difficulty with the "love thy neighbour" thing.

Though I can understand that being consistently Christian is a bit of a challenge, considering the number of contradictions in the Bible.

RJ 17:
is it really alright to just openly mock people of religious faith just because you happen to be an atheist?

It's not because he's a believer, it's because being scared of a number is silly.
It's like when skyscrapers don't have 13th floors because it's an unlucky number.
It's just dumb and people will laugh at dumb things.

Silvanus:
How am I "waging war"? I'm debating on the internet. Just like I'll disagree openly with Homeopaths, Scientologists, or those of different political persuasions, I'll disagree openly with the devout. I genuinely believe that disagreement and debate are pretty vital to the mind.

Humanity & welfare were around long before the Torah and the Bible, and are not derived from superstition. Gender equality and tolerance of the LGBT-community come from actively disavowing what the Church preaches, for two.

Was speaking hypothetically, and if you're going to talk equality and tolerance of alternative lifestyles, might want to not advocate for a humanist movement that converts people from religious doctrine to advance humanity in someone's opinion of what it should look like; it's kind of bullshit.

AgedGrunt:

Silvanus:

AgedGrunt:
you cannot fill every heart and community using graduated cylinders.

No, but you can with reasoned and humanist ideals, ideals antithetical to most of the religious doctrines of the world.

The progress we've made will be maintained by fighting against the never-ending efforts of the Churches to undermine it, not by accepting them. I speak here of the Churches, note, not personal belief.

So you wage war with your fellow man in the name of "humanist ideals". Do you hear yourself?

Peaceful religions are about humanity, welfare and values, by the way. Where do you think most of it was derived? Didn't come from the scientific method.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Certain ideas applied without understanding survived because they were more functional than other ideas that were applied without understanding. Better to work from a solid understanding than to stick with the standard "some of the better of our blind guesses."

evilneko:
snip

That is, in my opinion, ungrounded.

Pretty much as long as humanity has existed, until recently, there has been little dispute over whether a god exists or not. Before that, it was always assumed a god or multiple gods exists, or that there was atleast the supernatural.

Now, that is no proof that a god exists, but based on that I'd say it's unreasonable to call the atheist's perspective the default position.

itsthesheppy:

SimpleThunda':

Either way, it works both ways because:
Stating that god exists means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

God's existence (apparently) cannot be proven, this is true. God's existence therefor holds equal weight as the existence of faeries, unicorns and Harry Potter. This is why we treat god claims as imaginary, and ridicule them as such, because grown adults who hold ridiculous beliefs warrant ridicule for them.

Stating that god doesn't exist, ALSO means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

You clearly didn't read or understand my post where I patiently and thoroughly explained to you what burden of proof is and how it works in rational discourse. I suggest perhaps that you read it again. There is no burden of proof on the negative claim.

Furthermore, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding about what atheism is. Atheism is the "lack of belief in a god". It's not a claim. I'm not saying that god doesn't exist. I'm saying god has not been demonstrated to exist, so until such existence is proven I am treating god as imaginary. Same thing I do with ghosts and psychics and the loch ness monster. All imaginary claims with equal credence as the god claim.

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question." - Wikipedia

I think you'd do well to read that page yourself.

Whoever asserts the claim has to prove it.
Also if you claim something doesn't exist you'll have to prove it.
So whoever claims that god doesn't (or does) exist, has to prove it.
Which you can't.

That's the entire reason I am calling out atheists.
Stop claiming things you cannot prove. You're making the same mistake as theists.

I'm not saying anything about atheism. All I know is that a lot of atheists are just as eager to claim that god doesn't exist as theists are to claim that god does exist.

It is ungrounded, it is hypocritical. That's what I am calling out.

SimpleThunda':

itsthesheppy:

SimpleThunda':

Either way, it works both ways because:
Stating that god exists means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

God's existence (apparently) cannot be proven, this is true. God's existence therefor holds equal weight as the existence of faeries, unicorns and Harry Potter. This is why we treat god claims as imaginary, and ridicule them as such, because grown adults who hold ridiculous beliefs warrant ridicule for them.

Stating that god doesn't exist, ALSO means that you'll have to prove it. And you can't. Period.

You clearly didn't read or understand my post where I patiently and thoroughly explained to you what burden of proof is and how it works in rational discourse. I suggest perhaps that you read it again. There is no burden of proof on the negative claim.

Furthermore, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding about what atheism is. Atheism is the "lack of belief in a god". It's not a claim. I'm not saying that god doesn't exist. I'm saying god has not been demonstrated to exist, so until such existence is proven I am treating god as imaginary. Same thing I do with ghosts and psychics and the loch ness monster. All imaginary claims with equal credence as the god claim.

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question." - Wikipedia

I think you'd do well to read that page yourself.

Whoever asserts the claim has to prove it.
Also if you claim something doesn't exist you'll have to prove it.
So whoever claims that god doesn't (or does) exist, has to prove it.
Which you can't.

That's the entire reason I am calling out atheists.
Stop claiming things you cannot prove. You're making the same mistake as theists.

I'm not saying anything about atheism. All I know is that a lot of atheists are just as eager to claim that god doesn't exist as theists are to claim that god does exist.

It is ungrounded, it is hypocritical. That's what I am calling out.

*headdesk*

Please read what what I am about to type twice. Three times if you get to the end of it and still believe the incorrect nonsense you posted above.

I (and most atheists) are not claiming that god does not exist. I am saying that the evidence for his existence is insufficient to accept his existence.

Okay? We're not making a claim. We're not saying that god doesn't exist. WE'RE NOT CLAIMING TO KNOW THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. We're telling you that the evidence for his existence is flimsy or nonexistent.

Let me put it to you this way: Do you believe in Hanuman, the Hindu monkey god? How about Amun-Ra? Do you believe in Freya and Thor and Odin? Zues and Athena? Do you believe in Baal? How about Agni, or Hotei, Osun, Vayu, Skadi, or Pikuolis? If you do not believe in the factual existence of all of those gods (and there's more, nearly 3,000 more) then why? Did you find evidence to disprove all of them? If so I'd love to see your research.

Or, I suspect it's much more likely you don'y believe in them because a) you were not raised in a culture that did, and b) sufficient evidence to speak to their existence has not been supplied to you so you haven't even considered it. Anyone who walks up to you and tries to get you to accept that Varuna exists you would first ask to prove it. If they could not, are you obligated to accept that Varuna must exist because you don't have evidence disproving him? Of course not. Because if that was the case than congratulations, you now live in a universe where the Flying Spaghetti Monster not only exists, but has equal claims to veracity as your god. Maybe they room together. They'd have to, since the celestial empire is getting really crowded with all the gods we keep packing into it.

You and I are both atheists in regards to nearly three thousand gods. The only difference is the same logic you apply to not believing in all the rest, you do not apply to the one your happen to embrace. I simply apply that same logic to yours, too. That's the only difference. I see your god the same way you see Moeuhane; an unlikely claim with no evidence to back it up. Imaginary.

AgedGrunt:

Was speaking hypothetically, and if you're going to talk equality and tolerance of alternative lifestyles, might want to not advocate for a humanist movement that converts people from religious doctrine to advance humanity in someone's opinion of what it should look like; it's kind of bullshit.

Wh...what? When did I advocate for a "humanist movement that converts people from religious doctrine"? All I've done is debate on the internet (and occasionally in real life, though I make a point of not starting those debates). I believe debate is healthy and important, and I want people to question my own beliefs, because if I can't defend them, I shouldn't have them.

I do not concern myself with people's personally held, harmless beliefs. I do not try to convert people from them; please don't make stuff up. But when those beliefs become harmful to society or minorities, you're damn right I'm going to argue stridently against them; I would argue against any harmful belief (like Homeopathy), and religion should not be free from this scrutiny.

SimpleThunda':

Whoever asserts the claim has to prove it.
Also if you claim something doesn't exist you'll have to prove it.
So whoever claims that god doesn't (or does) exist, has to prove it.
Which you can't.

An atheist has to prove that God doesn't exist just as much as one must prove that invisible wizards don't exist. The same evidence for both exists, and as a result the same probability must be applied, which is negligible.

This has all been covered before. Positive statements require evidence; negative statements require a lack of evidence for the positive.

SimpleThunda':

evilneko:
snip

That is, in my opinion, ungrounded.

Pretty much as long as humanity has existed, until recently, there has been little dispute over whether a god exists or not. Before that, it was always assumed a god or multiple gods exists, or that there was atleast the supernatural.

Now, that is no proof that a god exists, but based on that I'd say it's unreasonable to call the atheist's perspective the default position.

Well, I'm sorry but, that would be wrong.

And if I find it amusing that you don't realize the wiki quote you later use doesn't actually support your position. Perhaps you should explore wiki a bit more to see why.

SimpleThunda':

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question." - Wikipedia

I think you'd do well to read that page yourself.

Whoever asserts the claim has to prove it.
Also if you claim something doesn't exist you'll have to prove it.
So whoever claims that god doesn't (or does) exist, has to prove it.
Which you can't.

That's the entire reason I am calling out atheists.
Stop claiming things you cannot prove. You're making the same mistake as theists.

I'm not saying anything about atheism. All I know is that a lot of atheists are just as eager to claim that god doesn't exist as theists are to claim that god does exist.

It is ungrounded, it is hypocritical. That's what I am calling out.

Point of contention, Your over looking the fact that the entire 'god does not exist' argument needing proof requires in fact that god does exist and that the proof that the 'god does not' argument now lies at the feet of the atheists. Proof of god must come first before you can counter the atheists claim that he doesn't with the burden of proof otherwise...

"If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

What you are in fact doing is 'appealing to ignorance'. Religion made the claim of the existence of god, atheists are the critics of said claim was false. It is religion's job now to prove that god exists before they can shift responsibility over to the atheists.

ultramarine486:

SimpleThunda':

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question." - Wikipedia

I think you'd do well to read that page yourself.

Whoever asserts the claim has to prove it.
Also if you claim something doesn't exist you'll have to prove it.
So whoever claims that god doesn't (or does) exist, has to prove it.
Which you can't.

That's the entire reason I am calling out atheists.
Stop claiming things you cannot prove. You're making the same mistake as theists.

I'm not saying anything about atheism. All I know is that a lot of atheists are just as eager to claim that god doesn't exist as theists are to claim that god does exist.

It is ungrounded, it is hypocritical. That's what I am calling out.

Point of contention, Your over looking the fact that the entire 'god does not exist' argument needing proof requires in fact that god does exist and that the proof that the 'god does not' argument now lies at the feet of the atheists. Proof of god must come first before you can counter the atheists claim that he doesn't with the burden of proof otherwise...

"If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

What you are in fact doing is 'appealing to ignorance'. Religion made the claim of the existence of god, atheists are the critics of said claim was false. It is religion's job now to prove that god exists before they can shift responsibility over to the atheists.

I am not claiming anything, so I have nothing to prove.

If I claimed god existed and then started this debate, THEN I would've been "appealing to ignorance".

The fact of the matter is, I am an atheist, and I am sick of seeing other atheists starting the same holy war theists are starting over religion, both making claims which they can't prove.

That is and has been my point and apparently, no one seems to grasp it.

Silvanus:
Wh...what? When did I advocate for a "humanist movement that converts people from religious doctrine"? ...and I want people to question my own beliefs, because if I can't defend them, I shouldn't have them.

I do not concern myself with people's personally held, harmless beliefs. I do not try to convert people from them;

Silvanus:

AgedGrunt:
you cannot fill every heart and community using graduated cylinders.

No, but you can with reasoned and humanist ideals, ideals antithetical to most of the religious doctrines of the world

There are definitions of a humanist as one that emphasizes moving "from religious to secular concerns" and "rejects religion in favour of a belief in the advancement of humanity by its own efforts", or is "a belief system based on the principle that people's spiritual and emotional needs can be satisfied without following a god or religion."

There is a more general definition that describes this way of thinking as basically concerned for humanity, its welfare, values, etc.

"Reasoned and humanist ideals" appears to either contradict what many churches do or supports educating people to be secular. Perhaps you can clarify how you intended to use the word humanist. The reason I'm making a big deal is it's a rather extraordinary claim to challenge a point that religion is necessary in society.

Let's be clear that you claim to criticize church yet at the same time describe reasoning ideals with individuals whom would hold personal, harmless belief.

AgedGrunt:
SNIP

I described my own ideals, the ones I personally hold; I argue on the internet, and I debate when the issue is brought up to me in person. I do not try to convert people from personal or harmless belief, and I do not evangelize. So, yes, I hold rational or humanist ideals, and I do not subscribe to a "humanist movement that converts people from religious doctrine". That's not a self-contradiction.

Hardly an extraordinary claim that religion is unnecessary in society. I find it quite extraordinary that people think that belief in a flying, invisible creator is necessary. What, precisely, does it offer us that we're incapable of without it?

SimpleThunda':
I am not claiming anything, so I have nothing to prove.

If I claimed god existed and then started this debate, THEN I would've been "appealing to ignorance".

The fact of the matter is, I am an atheist, and I am sick of seeing other atheists starting the same holy war theists are starting over religion, both making claims which they can't prove.

That is and has been my point and apparently, no one seems to grasp it.

Scientifically, you don't prove a negative. You don't have to prove that invisible wizards don't exist, we take that for granted unless someone presents proof that they do. You don't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, you examine evidence when someone claims that it does. And you do not prove that there is no god, because in science you do not prove a negative. You can make the point over and over again, and it is still wrong. That's not how science works.

Aris Khandr:

SimpleThunda':
I am not claiming anything, so I have nothing to prove.

If I claimed god existed and then started this debate, THEN I would've been "appealing to ignorance".

The fact of the matter is, I am an atheist, and I am sick of seeing other atheists starting the same holy war theists are starting over religion, both making claims which they can't prove.

That is and has been my point and apparently, no one seems to grasp it.

Scientifically, you don't prove a negative. You don't have to prove that invisible wizards don't exist, we take that for granted unless someone presents proof that they do. You don't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, you examine evidence when someone claims that it does. And you do not prove that there is no god, because in science you do not prove a negative. You can make the point over and over again, and it is still wrong. That's not how science works.

In otherwords, falsifiability. That's what he's missing.

Blablahb:

RJ 17:
When you boil it down, isn't that simply mocking and insulting someone for being different than you?

Uh, no. Religions all claim to know the truth and can be damn harassing, intrusive and even threatening and dangerous about it. While they're all wrong.

I found that post hilarious. Please tell me you were trying to be ironic by saying that they claim to know the truth while they were all wrong when you are doing the same exact thing.

People, mostly those are extremely insecure in their beliefs, will do anything they can to mock others because it makes them feel superior. Like people on this site, they will even go so low as changing the meaning of certain words (such as "belief") to fit their own definition and attack anyone else who actually knows what the word means. It is best to try and ignore them and let them live their miserable, jealous existence.

Assassin Xaero:
Like people on this site, they will even go so low as changing the meaning of certain words (such as "belief") to fit their own definition and attack anyone else who actually knows what the word means.

What does "belief" mean to you?

Seanchaidh:

Assassin Xaero:
Like people on this site, they will even go so low as changing the meaning of certain words (such as "belief") to fit their own definition and attack anyone else who actually knows what the word means.

What does "belief" mean to you?

This will not end well.

OT: Look, it is equally okay to mock people of any ideology. But you shouldn't mock people. Because it is rude. How is this not common knowledge?
You can DISAGREE with people, but mock them? Grow up.

RJ 17:

Blablahb:

RJ 17:
When you boil it down, isn't that simply mocking and insulting someone for being different than you?

Uh, no. Religions all claim to know the truth and can be damn harassing, intrusive and even threatening and dangerous about it. While they're all wrong.

So you've found the definitive proof that there isn't a higher power to believe in? If you did, I'd imagine you'd be the most famous person in the world. Also, it seems you didn't read my entire post:

Some might bring up religious zealots and people that are very eager to try and spread "The Word" as examples of the private religious lives of some intruding on the lives of others, but just as not every homosexual is a pedophile, nor is every person of faith a religious fanatic.

Yes, there are some psychos out there, but not all religious people are nutjobs. Again, just like not all hommosexuals are pedophiles.

Wrong stance to start talking about absolute truths my friend. Fact is puerile arguments concerning the justification of religious beliefs is useless, believers are gonna believe no matter what and the same goes for non-believers, although I will say this, it was discovered that the text stating the number of the beast to 666 was mistranslated, meaning the actual number to be different. With this context in mind, the original affair you refer to does seem a tad melodramatic. To address what I assume is your main question. Is the mocking of religious beliefs justified: No, no its not. But having grown up in a Catholic environment I am very aware of how harassing and intrusive a religion can be. Also, don't kid yourself, you can be the atheist and be on the receiving end of ridicule for having different beliefs. However, religion is fundamentally a good thing so i'm by no means saying its incorrect, its just something i no longer wish to partake in.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked