Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
No. I don't have an opinion. Atheism is the default position. If you claim to believe in Superman, it's your burden to prove it. You don't demand that I disprove it.
Faith is not "without evidence" argument
- Thread starter Into Тhe Night
- Start date
No. I don't have an opinion. Atheism is the default position. If you claim to believe in Superman, it's your burden to prove it. You don't demand that I disprove it.
Whether Superman is real or not it has never been my responsibility to prove it to you. If Superman were real it would still not be my job to help you understand that he was real. I don't think there are any DC Evangelicals around for you to demand evidence from.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Run from it all you like, 'Murica, but you are only fooling yourself when you declare you don't have an opinion.
I'm not seeking to prove anything to you, dumbass. How many times do I have to post you are free to think you are a meat robot of no more or less value alive than dead? The fact you ran from my questions about Might makes Right is all the evidence I need to know you are only fooling yourself with your opinions.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
You're missing the point. As Christopher Hitchens taught us, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
Let's apply Occam's Razor to your god! There are many philosophical debates around the existence of god(s). My solution to these debates is the simplest, which is that god(s) doesn't exist.
Why doesn't prayer work?
Because God doesn't exist.
Why can't I see God?
Because God doesn't exist.
Why does it seem like bad happens to good people? Why is life unfair?
Because God doesn't exist.
See? Occam's Razor.
However, Faith is not generated without evidence. The evidence these folks use is the eyewitness accounts written down in the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita etc. The Bible, the one that you mock here by calling their Skyfather (not meant in a mocking way, honest) "superman" is almost entirely made up of eyewitness accounts of past events and people. While we may choose not to believe in their veracity, saying there is no evidence is absurd, as a jurist pretending that eyewitness testimony is not evidence would be laughable. Eyewitness testimony is accepted in every court of the land as evidence of crimes, or of alibis.
So, we can measure the weight of the evidence, but saying there is none is just a lie. To me it is not convincing, to you it is not I assume as well, that doesn't change that it is still evidence.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
GIGO
You leaped to a false conclusion, son. This is why I think you have more in common with Perry PhD and Sybil than sane, more logical people.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
False.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
You don't understand Occam's Razor?
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Yes, I do. Do you know who Perry Phd and Sybil are on the forum?
A simple lie on your part, built on deliberate ignorance. You delete what you don't want to deal with, then just repeat what was shown to be a false statement. You may find the evidence unconvincing, but it doesn't change that it is evidence.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
If you understood Occam's Razor, you'd be an atheist.
Let's apply it to Superman:
Why hasn't anyone ever seen Superman save anyone?
Because Superman doesn't exist.
Why doesn't Superman fight terrorists?
Because Superman doesn't exist.
Why won't Superman save your cat from a tree?
Because Superman doesn't exist.
I wrote countless letters to Superman. Why won't he respond?
Because Superman doesn't exist.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
If faith were based on evidence, it wouldn't be faith. Lol. Do I, the atheist, need to remind you of Paul's epistle?
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Then where does faith come from? What is your evidence?
It doesn't require fairies or demons. I have faith you're an idiot and a liar. While the evidence is still building, I have faith, meaning an opinion based upon observable evidence, that I am correct in my assessment of your level of character and personality.
That is simply incorrect. I have informed you of the reality and you choose to remain purposefully and dutifully ignorant. Believing "without seeing" is not the same thing as believing without evidence. They believe eyewitness reports that you choose to believe are not enough to convince you, but you don't get to choose your own facts and label the evidence as "non existent" because you prefer it that way.
Again, eyewitness accounts are considered evidence in every court in this land, to pretend that they are not evidence to fit in your "there is no evidence at all" assertion is just being purposefully disingenuous, not only to others, but deliberately so to yourself.
I moved these posts to this thread. It doesn't change this post:
That is simply incorrect. I have informed you of the reality and you choose to remain purposefully and dutifully ignorant. Believing without seeing is not the same thing as believing without evidence. They believe eyewitness reports that you (and I for that matter) choose to believe are not enough to convince you, but you don't get to choose your own facts and label the evidence as "non existent" because you prefer it that way.
Again, eyewitness accounts are considered evidence in every court in this land, to pretend that they are not evidence to fit in your "there is no evidence at all" assertion is just being purposefully disingenuous, not only to others, but deliberately so to yourself.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Thanks for, once again proving you are a disingenuous person who expects others to answer his questions but rarely, if ever, answers theirs. Such character traits indicate you are a liar who makes false claims such as your relations, your education and your level of expertise.
If you were an honest, logical person I'd be happy to discuss some of your questions, at least the logical ones. Sadly, you have quickly proven you are neither.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Yes...Problem is, Doc Dutch is a moron.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are in error. Damocles is correct that no one is required to prove anything. One glance at the cowardly, undereducated leftists on JPP and one can instantly see a complete absence of even willingness to support one's argument. Leftists NEVER support their claims; they simply hurl insults as though that somehow suffices. So one has to wonder where you ever got the nutty idea that religious people somehow answer to you.
If you wish to be correct on this matter, the wording has to be to the effect of the one making an affirmative argument bearing the responsibility to support that argument if he wishes to convince another rational adult. If gfm7175 for example, tells me that he believes that a man walked on water, and believes that the same man died but came back to life, ... but gfm7175 has no particular need for me to also believe as he does, then he doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. He is free to believe as he wishes and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
If tomorrow he has a change of heart and he finds that he really needs for me to join his congregation, well then he's going to have to put up with a whole lot of questions from me about the physics-defying parts of his claims ... but the extent to which he supports his arguments is entirely up to him, and I'm in charge of determining if I'm convinced. gfm7175 might try the strategy of opening with the miracle of the wine at Cana, draw me in and get me interested. Then, when I'm starting to like this Jesus guy, gfm7175 can smoothly transition into Salvation and all the loaves and fish I want. The point is that once we understand the context is to convince a third party, the argument can take on the elements of a sales pitch just as it can take the form of a rational argument. No "proving" is required, and this applies both to any Christian who is asserting a belief in the Christian God, and to any non-believer who is asserting a lack of belief in the Christian God. If the desire is to convince, then the burden must be assumed. If I try to convince gfm7175 that he should abandon his belief in the Christian God, then yes, I would bear the full burden to sell the idea of an eternity as worm food, and he would not somehow be required to assume the atheist position as a "default" and somehow have to justify his faith. The burden of support is ultimately borne by the one attempting to convince another rational adult of some affirmative argument.
@gfm7175, I've been meaning to talk to you about eternity, and how you can make an eternal biogeochemical contribution wherever you wish, and your estate might even get a tax credit if solar panels are involved.