Thread: "GOD EXISTS, ATHEISTS!!! I'll prove it SCIENTIFICALLY!!"

Originally Posted by Lord Toaster

Justin, I just found this thread. I zoomed in on "GOD EXISTS, ATHEISTS!!! I'll prove it SCIENTIFICALLY!!" in the other new posts section.

Your video proved squat. It just said that if you want, you can believe that God made everything in the universe, and the thread since then seems to have proved (again), the point that we atheists can't prove that god doesn't exist, while the theists can't prove that he does.

And the whole thing about the slaves seems nonsensical to me. The point of having slaves is that you get a ton of more or less free labour. It just doesn't make sense to say that people would have treated their slaves (ie. people who they can control until they die) as siblings (ie. people that they have grown up with and love).

And I also agree with whoever it was who said that it's up to the believer to prove his belief, and not up to the non-believer to disprove it.

everyone in this thread already knew you can't prove or disprove a god

isn't that what a slave is for? free labor? obviously
the only reason it doesn't make sense is because you've never seen it, it could happen

"And I also agree with whoever it was who said that it's up to the believer to prove his belief, and not up to the non-believer to disprove it."

theist = believer
atheist = believer

theist = non-believer
atheist = non-believer

therefore by your sentence it falls on both to prove or disprove existance, and once again it's impossible



thanks for your post!

God was designed to be non-provable. Any flaws in this design that were later revealed by exploration or science have been patched and refined to keep him that way.

i don't really know of a flaw to the design, as far as the christian god goes, no one knows if it's male or female, no one knows what it looks like, it stays in heaven and no one knows where that's at

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

...it stays in heaven and no one knows where that's at

Thank you. An excellent example of designed-as-unproveable.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

everyone in this thread already knew you can't prove or disprove a god

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

GOD EXISTS, ATHEISTS!!! I'll prove it SCIENTIFICALLY!!

...

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

"And I also agree with whoever it was who said that it's up to the believer to prove his belief, and not up to the non-believer to disprove it."

theist = believer
atheist = believer

theist = non-believer
atheist = non-believer

therefore by your sentence it falls on both to prove or disprove existance, and once again it's impossible

I have no idea what point you're making here. I said that I agree with this principle: that it is up to the believer to prove his belief (ie. something that so far has no proof behind it) to the non-believer, and not the other way round.

In this case, the theist is clearly the believer, as he believes in God. The atheist is the non-believer, as he does not believe in God.

So, what I am saying is that it is the theist who must prove God's existence. The atheist does not believe on the grounds that there is no proof.

--> God is non-existent until proven real, in my book.

I'm not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean. I was not trying to prove or disprove existence... I was under the impression we were discussing the existence of God

And for the record, saying "You can't disprove it" does not constitute proof.

Originally Posted by Lord Toaster

...



I have no idea what point you're making here. I said that I agree with this principle: that it is up to the believer to prove his belief (ie. something that so far has no proof behind it) to the non-believer, and not the other way round.

In this case, the theist is clearly the believer, as he believes in God. The atheist is the non-believer, as he does not believe in God.

So, what I am saying is that it is the theist who must prove God's existence. The atheist does not believe on the grounds that there is no proof.

--> God is non-existent until proven real, in my book.

I'm not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean. I was not trying to prove or disprove existence... I was under the impression we were discussing the existence of God

And for the record, saying "You can't disprove it" does not constitute proof.

the name of the thread was the name of the video.

there's no proof behind the existance or non-existance so what i said still is true, the theists believes existance, the atheist believes non-existance.

"And for the record, saying "You can't disprove it" does not constitute proof."

i've already stated numerous times you can't prove or disprove it

the only person in a religious debate that should be on neutral grounds and not have to prove or disprove is an agnostic.

Right:
Atheists do not believe in God.

Wrong:
Atheists believe that God does not exist.

Point being, that atheism is not the believe in the non-existance of God. Atheism is the lack of believe in the existance of God.

Normally there would be no difference, but since you like to fuck around with language, so that we (the atheists) sound like religious people aswell, this point had to be stated.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Right:
Atheists do not believe in God.

Wrong:
Atheists believe that God does not exist.

Point being, that atheism is not the believe in the non-existance of God. Atheism is the lack of believe in the existance of God.

Normally there would be no difference, but since you like to fuck around with language, so that we (the atheists) sound like religious people aswell, this point had to be stated.

lack of belief in a god means you believe in no god

just because you believe in something doesn't mean your religious, i can say i believe in magic does that mean i'm religious now? no

Originally Posted by Marvo

Point being, that atheism is not the believe in the non-existance of God. Atheism is the lack of believe in the existance of God.

Spot on. Another way of putting it is that Atheism does not require even being presented with the idea of God or having considered the notion at all. Every human being is born an Atheist, whether they admit it or not.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

lack of belief in a god means you believe in no god

just because you believe in something doesn't mean your religious, i can say i believe in magic does that mean i'm religious now? no

ok, you have a "lack of belief in god"

if you lack something it's missing, or not there

so if you have a "lack of belief in god" you have no belief in god


if that's not true then explain to me why it's not true

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

ok, you have a "lack of belief in god"

if you lack something it's missing, or not there

so if you have a "lack of belief in god" you have no belief in god


if that's not true then explain to me why it's not true

You are trying to link opposites together in order to make your argument work.

Lack of Belief or Disbelief =/= Belief

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

ok, you have a "lack of belief in god"

if you lack something it's missing, or not there

so if you have a "lack of belief in god" you have no belief in god


if that's not true then explain to me why it's not true

Exactly. That does however not correlate with what you said in 309.

ninja-edit: Blue, I think he got it right.

*checking again*

"I've heard about God, and I reject the notion" = Atheist
"I've never heard about God... what's that?" = Atheist

The first is belief in the absence of God, the second is the absense of belief in God. Either position makes you an Atheist.

well in my opinion they should think of a new word for atheist because the word it came from means godless

and everyone has heard of god unless they've lived in a cave since birth and have never had contact with the outside world

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

well in my opinion they should think of a new word for atheist because the word it came from means godless

"Godless" is fine. I am Godless... so are all other Atheists. The only problem I have with it is that since I believe there is no God, I also believe everyone on the planet is "Godless."

and everyone has heard of god unless they've lived in a cave since birth and have never had contact with the outside world

I'd say that just about every human being between 0 and 2 has no idea what "God" is supposed to mean. That's a lot of little Atheists running around!

Originally Posted by skysaw

"Godless" is fine. I am Godless... so are all other Atheists. The only problem I have with it is that since I believe there is no God, I also believe everyone on the planet is "Godless."


I'd say that just about every human being between 0 and 2 has no idea what "God" is supposed to mean. That's a lot of little Atheists running around!

0-2 doesn't know much of anything, they can still hear about god even they they won't know what it is, no one knows what god is really, that doesn't make everyone atheist

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

well in my opinion they should think of a new word for atheist because the word it came from means godless

and everyone has heard of god unless they've lived in a cave since birth and have never had contact with the outside world

Just because you've heard it does not make it true. I mean, let me ask you this: Do you believe that black cats crossing your path is a sign of bad luck?

I'm sure you have encountered this belief at some point in your life, so the fact you can't prove or disprove this little superstition makes you either believe that it is not true, or you believe it is true? Does that mean you have to be agnostic about black cats in order to even discuss the matter?

However, let's take the point of view of the sceptic here. Here he is minding his own business until someone comes along and says that black cats crossing your path will cause you bad luck. Having not heard this before or even if he has, the sceptic asks the person making the claim if he has any proof for his claim. The person goes on to tell a bunch of anecdotes, but the sceptic is not fooled. The sceptic highlights the problems of anecdotal evidence and asks for something more substantial. The person then says that he can't disprove it or prove it either because the cat's effect is supernatural.

However, the sceptic seeing the problem of such claims, dismisses it anyway. Now why would he dismiss it? I'll explain to you:

In any position where a claim is being made, the proponent has to provide proof to validate his claim. Only then can the idea be disproved, because there is material one can refute with analysis and further application of evidence to support the analysis. If something is offered without proof, it can't be taken through the same process, because there is no material to disprove. Just on this point, as soon as a claim is made without evidence to back it up, it can be dismissed without evidence.

When the concept of God is proposed, the sceptic is in no position to provide proof until the proposer provides proof of his own. If he does, then the sceptic can acknowledge the claim as being valid and begin to formulate his analysis of the claim. However, without evidence there can be no analysis. It becomes impossible to disprove because there is nothing being offered as proof to begin with. Therefore, the concept of God can be dismissed until people can show evidence for it.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

0-2 doesn't know much of anything, they can still hear about god even they they won't know what it is, no one knows what god is really, that doesn't make everyone atheist

In order to not be an Atheist, you must believe in God. In order to believe in God, you must at least know about God. Therefore, those who don't know about God (including most people 0-2 years old) are perfect examples of Atheists. Holding any other position on this matter means you don't understand what "Atheist" means.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Just because you've heard it does not make it true. I mean, let me ask you this: Do you believe that black cats crossing your path is a sign of bad luck?

I'm sure you have encountered this belief at some point in your life, so the fact you can't prove or disprove this little superstition makes you either believe that it is not true, or you believe it is true? Does that mean you have to be agnostic about black cats in order to even discuss the matter?

However, let's take the point of view of the sceptic here. Here he is minding his own business until someone comes along and says that black cats crossing your path will cause you bad luck. Having not heard this before or even if he has, the sceptic asks the person making the claim if he has any proof for his claim. The person goes on to tell a bunch of anecdotes, but the sceptic is not fooled. The sceptic highlights the problems of anecdotal evidence and asks for something more substantial. The person then says that he can't disprove it or prove it either because the cat's effect is supernatural.

However, the sceptic seeing the problem of such claims, dismisses it anyway. Now why would he dismiss it? I'll explain to you:

In any position where a claim is being made, the proponent has to provide proof to validate his claim. Only then can the idea be disproved, because there is material one can refute with analysis and further application of evidence to support the analysis. If something is offered without proof, it can't be taken through the same process, because there is no material to disprove. Just on this point, as soon as a claim is made without evidence to back it up, it can be dismissed without evidence.

When the concept of God is proposed, the sceptic is in no position to provide proof until the proposer provides proof of his own. If he does, then the sceptic can acknowledge the claim as being valid and begin to formulate his analysis of the claim. However, without evidence there can be no analysis. It becomes impossible to disprove because there is nothing being offered as proof to begin with. Therefore, the concept of God can be dismissed until people can show evidence for it.

yes i get your point, but wouldn't it be the other way to, if the atheist is the one to make the claim?

the concept of the non-existance of god is proposed, therefore the skeptic is the theist and he shouldn't have to provide proof until the proposer provides his own. then like you said if he does then the skeptic can acknowledge the claim as being valid and begin to formulate his analysis of the claim, but of course no evidence can be provided so the cocenpt of god's non-existance could also be dismissed

wouldn't that fall under the same ruling?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

yes i get your point, but wouldn't it be the other way to, if the atheist is the one to make the claim?

the concept of the non-existance of god is proposed, therefore the skeptic is the theist and he shouldn't have to provide proof until the proposer provides his own. then like you said if he does then the skeptic can acknowledge the claim as being valid and begin to formulate his analysis of the claim, but of course no evidence can be provided so the cocenpt of god's non-existance could also be dismissed

wouldn't that fall under the same ruling?

Considering that the concept of God is a theistic one, then when an atheist makes a claim of "There is no God", he is talking about the concept in general. However, if he explicitly asserts such a claim, then yes, it would fall under the same scrutiny, BUT, usually these claims are made in rebuttal to the claim of "There is a God", as usually when a theist makes that claim and provides no evidence, the atheist can make the counter-claim "There is no God" and not provide evidence himself. Why? Because if one point is asserted without evidence, the counterpoint can be asserted without evidence as well.

If a person enters the debate and proposes the debate to be "There is no God" as in he is starting the debate as the proposer, then the burden of proof falls on him.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Considering that the concept of God is a theistic one, then when an atheist makes a claim of "There is no God", he is talking about the concept in general. However, if he explicitly asserts such a claim, then yes, it would fall under the same scrutiny, BUT, usually these claims are made in rebuttal to the claim of "There is a God", as usually when a theist makes that claim and provides no evidence, the atheist can make the counter-claim "There is no God" and not provide evidence himself. Why? Because if one point is asserted without evidence, the counterpoint can be asserted without evidence as well.

If a person enters the debate and proposes the debate to be "There is no God" as in he is starting the debate as the proposer, then the burden of proof falls on him.

ok we're both in agreement then

i'll agree to the statement

but it's time for work now, have a good day!

Justin, here is the point:

Human is spawned.
Human has no knowledge of God.
One day a human makes the claim that there is a God with these and these properties.

The world started without God. EVERY human starts without a God. Thus the existence of God is the claim, not the non-existance. You'd be a madman to claim non-existance to something that has been proven, unless you have evidence that disproves the first piece(s) of evidence, which would get us back to the very beginning.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Justin, here is the point:

Human is spawned.
Human has no knowledge of God.
One day a human makes the claim that there is a God with these and these properties.

The world started without God. EVERY human starts without a God. Thus the existence of God is the claim, not the non-existance. You'd be a madman to claim non-existance to something that has been proven, unless you have evidence that disproves the first piece(s) of evidence, which would get us back to the very beginning.

what's the point in saying "You'd be a madman to claim non-existance to something that has been proven, unless you have evidence that disproves the first piece(s) of evidence, which would get us back to the very beginning."

who's claimed non-existance to something that's been proven so far?