If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[ZenMode]

Yup. And asking them to prove it makes sense, because anyone making an assertion bears that burden.

Exactly. I'm not making an assertion. I'm saying that theists bear the burden of proof.

No, because you think you can make assertions without providing proof.

Nope. The people claiming gods exist are making assertions just as people who believe in astrology are making assertions. It's not my responsibility to disprove the existence of gods or astrology because neither has been proven in the first place.

Me saying "gods don't exist" or "astrology is fake" is just another way of saying "YOU haven't provided sufficient evidence to support your claim".

Again, the default isn't to believe claims until they are disproved. The burden is on those making the assertion.

 

[gfm7175]

all you need is the golden rule.

The golden rule isn't everything.

throw the racism away.

What racism?

 

[Monad Portal]

The golden rule isn't everything.

it is.

What racism?

Jewish racism.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Exactly. I'm not making an assertion. I'm saying that theists bear the burden of proof.

Nope. The people claiming gods exist are making assertions just as people who believe in astrology are making assertions. It's not my responsibility to disprove the existence of gods or astrology because neither has been proven in the first place.

Me saying "gods don't exist" or "astrology is fake" is just another way of saying "YOU haven't provided sufficient evidence to support your claim".

Again, the default isn't to believe claims until they are disproved. The burden is on those making the assertion.

Boy, you have bitten off much more than you can chew...so you are spitting stuff out and pretending you have "swallowed it."

You are heaping scorn on religionists who are saying that they "believe" a god exists...and demanding that they prove that one does.

You, on the other hand, are saying that you "believe" there are no gods...and denying that you have a burden of proof for that.


C'mon! You do. That is why the more intelligent atheists pretend that they do not "believe" there are no gods...just that they are merely saying they do not "believe" there ARE gods.

You are in the mire now. Either prove your contention that there are no gods...or stiffen your spine and acknowledge that you have fucked up now that you are arguing with an agnostic type rather than picking on religionists.

 

[ZenMode]

You are in the mire now. Either prove your contention that there are no gods...or stiffen your spine and acknowledge that you have fucked up now that you are arguing with an agnostic type rather than picking on religionists.

I don't have to disprove what has never been proved.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I don't have to disprove what has never been proved.

You bear the burden of proof for your assertion that no gods exist.

Prove it or acknowledge that you can't. (You cannot!)

Or...continue to pretend you can make assertions without having to prove them. It is cute...and I certainly enjoy it.

 

[Cypress]

What 'Universal Truths'??

You militant atheists are free to believe in moral relativism, and that everything is just subject to opinion and cultural convention

I think that there is a universal moral truth and an absolute right and wrong.
Torturing babies, disemboweling pregnant women, and gassing Jews is objectively wrong for all time and all place independent of human opinion or whim.

The Universe is unorganized!!!

 

[ZenMode]

You bear the burden of proof for your assertion that no gods exist.

If I said "Santa doesn't exist" would you say I had to prove my assertion?

 

[Ross Dolan]

If I said "Santa doesn't exist" would you say I had to prove my assertion?

YES. Every assertion bears the burden of proof in a debate.

 

[Monad Portal]

Boy, you have bitten off much more than you can chew...so you are spitting stuff out and pretending you have "swallowed it."

You are heaping scorn on religionists who are saying that they "believe" a god exists...and demanding that they prove that one does.

You, on the other hand, are saying that you "believe" there are no gods...and denying that you have a burden of proof for that.


C'mon! You do. That is why the more intelligent atheists pretend that they do not "believe" there are no gods...just that they are merely saying they do not "believe" there ARE gods.

You are in the mire now. Either prove your contention that there are no gods...or stiffen your spine and acknowledge that you have fucked up now that you are arguing with an agnostic type rather than picking on religionists.

shut up, you masonic little bitch cretin.

you're a whore.

 

[Monad Portal]

YES. Every assertion bears the burden of proof in a debate.

no it doesn't.

burden of proof is a strictly legal construct.

 

[ZenMode]

YES. Every assertion bears the burden of proof in a debate.

But you can't explain, or given an example of, how to prove a negative assertion.

 

[Ross Dolan]

But you can't explain, or given an example of, how to prove a negative assertion.

Correct. Which is why I consider it morbidly stupid to assert a negative.

But..."there are no gods" IS NOT ACTUALLY A NEGATIVE ASSERTION. It is a positive assertion. It positively asserts that in the REALITY of existence...no gods exist.

 

[ZenMode]

Correct. Which is why I consider it morbidly stupid to assert a negative.

But..."there are no gods" IS NOT ACTUALLY A NEGATIVE ASSERTION. It is a positive assertion. It positively asserts that in the REALITY of existence...no gods exist.

To clarify, in your opinion it's "morbidly stupid" to say "Santa doesn't exist", right?

 

[Cypress]

I don't have to disprove what has never been proved.

You have to be able to explain and justify your worldview.

You believe the origin, and the lawful mathematical rationality of the universe is caused by purely inanimate and irrational physical reasons and pure chance.

So exactly why is the most logical explanation that the rational could come from the irrational; that something could from nothing; that lawful order could come from chance and chaos?

 

[Ross Dolan]

To clarify, in your opinion it's "morbidly stupid" to say "Santa doesn't exist", right?

No. It isn't. But if you are in a debate...you are going to have to bear the burden of proof for that assertion. So a person who is in a debate, and is not stupid, would just not make the assertion.

Now...can we get back to your assertion that there are no gods?

 

[ZenMode]

No. It isn't. But if you are in a debate...you are going to have to bear the burden of proof for that assertion. So a person who is in a debate, and is not stupid, would just not make the assertion.

Now...can we get back to your assertion that there are no gods?

This isn't high school debate. This is real life. You can't say it's NOT morbidly stupid to say there's no Santa Clause and then turn around and say it IS morbidly stupid to say there are no gods.

 

[Ross Dolan]

This isn't high school debate.

No...you are intellectually prepared for something of that formality. It is merely an Internet discussion...where certain rules are normally observed...such as anyone who makes an assertion is obliged to bear the burden of proof for that assertion.

This is real life.

THIS actually is virtual life...or cyber life. Real life is a different thing.

You can't say it's NOT morbidly stupid to say there's no Santa Clause...

...which I have not said. In fact, in your #4034, when you asked if it is morbidly stupid to say there is no Santa Clause (sic) my response was, "No it isn't." (see my #4036) You can read, correct?

...and then turn around and say it IS morbidly stupid to say there are no gods.

I suggested that to avoid being morbidly stupid, you should avoid making assertions of that kind.

Try to keep up.