Fed up of non believers

[salsafan]

 

Saves typing

 

HAHAHAHA.... OMG.

"I use this word and I am intelligent."

 

(I'm confused by the definitions too. Lol.)

Edited March 5, 2014 by salsafan

[mjw47]

You're wrong. All opinions are beliefs and there is no such thing as proof. There are merely different levels of evidence supporting the opinions.

Especially, but not exclusively. Do you believe in gravity?

Are you actually suggesting a negative can be proven?

 

This is why you continue to ignore questions about things you don't believe in, like Santa. Because it will highlight why negatives cannot be proven and make your agnosticism seem a bit silly.

I agree that you cannot be both.

Are you agnostic about Santa???

 

Only with regard to religion or lack thereof.

 

Yes all opinions are beliefs.

 

I have no idea or interest as to whether you can prove a negative or not. What I do know, is that it is the usual retort that atheists come out with when challenged to prove there is no God.

 

This does not however remove from them the burden of proof to back up their claim.

 

This makes them believers like the rest of us whether they like it or not.

 

Please explain how proving a negative effects agnosticism?

 

We don't know, because we cannot prove it, that a God(s) exists.

 

We also don't know, because we cannot prove it, that God(s) do not exist.

 

Thank you for at least accepting that you can't be both.

 

Do I believe in gravity? Well I find that if I drop something it falls toward the ground and it has been explained to me that gravity is the reason, so that would be a yes.

 

As to Santa, who exactly above the age of six is claiming that Santa exists?

Santa is a made up character to entertain children at Christmas, so no not since about 1953.

 

[SnailyBoy]

Only with regard to religion or lack thereof.

 

Yes all opinions are beliefs.

 

I have no idea or interest as to whether you can prove a negative or not. What I do know, is that it is the usual retort that atheists come out with when challenged to prove there is no God.

 

This does not however remove from them the burden of proof to back up their claim.

 

This makes them believers like the rest of us whether they like it or not.

 

Please explain how proving a negative effects agnosticism?

 

We don't know, because we cannot prove it, that a God(s) exists.

 

We also don't know, because we cannot prove it, that God(s) do not exist.

 

Thank you for at least accepting that you can't be both.

 

Do I believe in gravity? Well I find that if I drop something it falls toward the ground and it has been explained to me that gravity is the reason, so that would be a yes.

 

As to Santa, who exactly above the age of six is claiming that Santa exists?

Santa is a made up character to entertain children at Christmas, so no not since about 1953.

 

 

Atheists do not make the assertion that a god(s) do not exist. No burden of proof.

 

Theists make the assertion that a god exists. Burden of proof

 

Atheists lack the belief that a god(s) exits. - Lack of belief is not a belief.

Edited March 5, 2014 by SnailyBoy

[Bob England]

Yes, but ivanana said that she/he 'knows' that claims knowledge, and to assert that you have knowledge of a subject can and does demand proof.

 

Had the claim been 'believe' then that would have been fine.

 

But they said they knew.

 

I hope they do otherwise my dreams of amassing a fortune are looking bleak.

 

We are not at variance my friend. There is more evidence for leprechauns. If Ivanana has "proof" she should produce it, she will have done more than any one has done for at least 2000 years.

[Ryedo40]

I have no idea or interest as to whether you can prove a negative or not.

 

So why are you asking atheists to prove a negative?

 

What I do know, is that it is the usual retort that atheists come out with when challenged to prove there is no God.

 

Those claiming something exists need to prove it. The evidence they provide should speak for itself. If the evidence doesn't stand-up to scrutiny, there is no reason to assume it exists - and no reason to believe it exists.

 

This does not however remove from them the burden of proof to back up their claim.

 

What? You want atheists to prove the claim that they lack belief in the existence of god?

[mjw47]

Atheists do not make the assertion that a god(s) do not exist. No burden of proof.

 

Theists make the assertion that a god exists. Burden of proof

 

Atheists lack the belief that a god(s) exits. - Lack of belief is not a belief.

 

Then they need to acquire another name then because the current one means 'a' without + theos God.

 

Atheists do make the claim that God(s) do not exist that is why they describe themselves in that manner.

 

Should you continue to disagree please take it up with the OED : Atheism, The belief that God does not exist.

 

Please take particular not of the word 'belief' used in the definition.

 

Should you however wish to argue with the Oxford English Dictionary then I will be forced to draw the obvious conclusion.

[salsafan]

This is a very good documentary about the development of a religion, and why we do still find some aspect of spirituality everywhere else. Whether this is in the simple form of yoga, or voluntary work for compassion and kindness.

 

http://youtu.be/DctQTDm-HdU

 

It really is interesting to see how the original concept is to develop one's tolerance to the harshness of their immediate environment, and then Man can conquer their environments to such a high extent that they can actually deal with their own mortality.

[flamingjimmy]

"Lol, seriously, I actually laughed out loud twice while watching that video. Do you really believe the claims made in it?"

Yes.

 

Ok, wow. If you actually believe in magic healers who charge up their powers by doing kung fu then I can't really see myself getting very far in this debate with you. Good luck with that, and have a nice day.

[danot]

The definition of atheist ought to be- 'someone that has a uncontrollable urge to argue with the position of creationism and an inability to accept the existence of anything that is beyond the scope of human comprehension.... and Wikipedia'

 

It would make things so much easier!

 

[Ryedo40]

The definition of atheist ought to be- 'someone that has a uncontrollable urge to argue with the position of creationism and an inability to accept the existence of anything that is beyond the scope of human comprehension.... and Wikipedia'

 

It would make things so much easier!

 

 

By that definition, theists who argue against creationism are atheists.

 

Could also say theism is the uncontrollable urge to argue with atheists - and an inability to accept reality or discern fact from fiction.