Login   Register
 Login    Register
Fucking Catholics and their birth control hate
Pascal's Pager
User avatar
aka: the pretentious bigmouth
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 7,639 | Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2012
Zoinks, y'all. We're not inventing this sort of argument, here. These are well-established positions of discourse. Maybe this helps?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosop ... n_of_proof

"When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".
Nathan Bateman wrote:After a long day of Turing tests, you gotta unwind.

Hollywood
User avatar
....chubby, fat face, and B cups
 
Rank: User
Posts: 48,060 | Offline
Joined: Jul 28, 2008

good, so I'll no longer use the word believe in my statements. I will now only simply say what you're saying is absurd.
SharonNeedles wrote:I'm with Jewdo on this one

Listn2BlkSabth
User avatar
My brain's an asshole
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 1,445 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

Hypermotard wrote:
Knuckles Goldberg wrote:this is absurd. I am aware of the concept of death. Death is scientifically provable. When you die, you're gone and your body rots. Death is absolute. To say "I don't know what happens when you die, nobody does" is absurd, because a bunch of idiots around the world made up shit about their being transferring somewhere else after they die. It's absurd. You're all fucking absurd. Keep believing that planes of existence are out there just for you. My saying there is no such thing isn't a fucking belief, you can't find it or see it or feel it or have any grasp of what it is. I've made no statements other than what you "believe" is stupid


I'm on your side. I'm not denying any of what you have said. If it makes you feel better replace the word belief with "judgement call". You are rejecting an assertion someone else is making based on your knowledge and personal life experience. There is a term for why you reject that assertion, is my one and only point.

Well if you want to replace your words with different words that mean different things, then you are absolutely right.
Atheism is a judgement.

Gimme a break
User avatar
You made humor the issue, not me.
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 3,010 | Offline
Joined: May 10, 2011

Pascal's Pager wrote: if you say, "God does not exist," and the other guy says, "I don't believe you," the burden of proof is on you. You're making an assertion, you have to back it up.


Listn2BlkSabth wrote:PP is right.


No he's not. If I say "Sticks on the ground do not exist" and the other guy says "I don't believe you," the burden of proof is not on me. It is impossible prove a negative.

Now what if the sticks are camouflaged, or are too small to see or something. Fine then, break out a microscope and show me. But whether I'm right or wrong has zero to do with where the burden of proof lies.

On the other hand if I say "I know for a fact there are no sticks," then I've just made a baseless statement with no way of proving, which is foolish. Even still, the burden of proof is not on me. No matter how foolish the statement is, the burden of proof always lies with proving the positive (showing the sticks).
Cunnilingus wrote:Gimme a Break: Most underrated poster.

Pascal's Pager
User avatar
aka: the pretentious bigmouth
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 7,639 | Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2012

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1410107396.716714.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1410107396.716714.jpg (74.77 KiB) Viewed 245 times
Nathan Bateman wrote:After a long day of Turing tests, you gotta unwind.

Listn2BlkSabth
User avatar
My brain's an asshole
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 1,445 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

Gimme a break wrote:If I say "Sticks on the ground do not exist" and the other guy says "I don't believe you," the burden of proof is not on me. It is impossible prove a negative.

I'm assuming you investigated the ground in question and the proof you are offering is the absence of evidence of there being sticks on the ground.
If the other person rejects this proof then the burden is on him to find a stick.
But if you both have your eyes closed then you haven't offered any proof and your assertion can be dismissed without proof.

Gimme a break
User avatar
You made humor the issue, not me.
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 3,010 | Offline
Joined: May 10, 2011

Listn2BlkSabth wrote:
Gimme a break wrote:If I say "Sticks on the ground do not exist" and the other guy says "I don't believe you," the burden of proof is not on me. It is impossible prove a negative.

I'm assuming you investigated the ground in question and the proof you are offering is the absence of evidence of there being sticks on the ground.
If the other person rejects this proof then the burden is on him to find a stick.
But if you both have your eyes closed then you haven't offered any proof and your assertion can be dismissed without proof.

Come on dude you can assume that I have functioning eyes. I'm not a blind madman that walks up to complete strangers and screams "THERE ARE NO STICKS!!"
Cunnilingus wrote:Gimme a Break: Most underrated poster.

O(+>
User avatar
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 2,730 | Offline
Joined: Aug 7, 2014

Listn2BlkSabth wrote:It's unjustifiable because theists always move the goal posts. If we discover 10 other dimensions and explored them completely, the theists would say that God lives in the next dimension. Believing that God doesn't exist is unjustifiable, but rejecting the belief that he does is justified.


Different religions have different beliefs. Different adherents within different religions have different beliefs. That's not "moving the goal posts".

I think you need to look up the definition of justification.

Listn2BlkSabth
User avatar
My brain's an asshole
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 1,445 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

Gimme a break wrote:
Listn2BlkSabth wrote:
Gimme a break wrote:If I say "Sticks on the ground do not exist" and the other guy says "I don't believe you," the burden of proof is not on me. It is impossible prove a negative.

I'm assuming you investigated the ground in question and the proof you are offering is the absence of evidence of there being sticks on the ground.
If the other person rejects this proof then the burden is on him to find a stick.
But if you both have your eyes closed then you haven't offered any proof and your assertion can be dismissed without proof.

Come on dude you can assume that I have functioning eyes. I'm not a blind madman that walks up to complete strangers and screams "THERE ARE NO STICKS!!"


Then the burden of proof is on you and you provided it.
But if someone says "There is no God" and provides absence of evidence as proof, then that only disproves the existence of a God that leaves behind evidence.
And Theists always move the goal posts when it comes to the definition of God.
It's not our fault that we can't prove that God doesn't exist, it's theirs.

Listn2BlkSabth
User avatar
My brain's an asshole
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 1,445 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

O(+> wrote:
Listn2BlkSabth wrote:It's unjustifiable because theists always move the goal posts. If we discover 10 other dimensions and explored them completely, the theists would say that God lives in the next dimension. Believing that God doesn't exist is unjustifiable, but rejecting the belief that he does is justified.


Different religions have different beliefs. Different adherents within different religions have different beliefs. That's not "moving the goal posts".

I think you need to look up the definition of justification.

Justification - The action of showing something to be right or reasonable.

I'm talking about how the concept of God has evolved over time as our understanding of the universe has advanced.
God used to make the sun go up and down.
Then we figured out that it's just the earth rotating.
Now it's gotten to the point that God doesn't do much of anything.
But there will always be a theist who claims that God is just beyond our understanding.
And that claim cannot be shown to be right or reasonable.

Gimme a break
User avatar
You made humor the issue, not me.
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 3,010 | Offline
Joined: May 10, 2011

Listn2BlkSabth wrote:Then the burden of proof is on you and you provided it.

Call that proof if you want but the fact is you can never prove a negative. Science has never proven that God does not exist, because that is impossible. It has simply proven things the bible says are untrue.
Cunnilingus wrote:Gimme a Break: Most underrated poster.

Listn2BlkSabth
User avatar
My brain's an asshole
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 1,445 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

Gimme a break wrote:
Listn2BlkSabth wrote:Then the burden of proof is on you and you provided it.

Call that proof if you want but the fact is you can never prove a negative. Science has never proven that God does not exist, because that is impossible. It has simply proven things the bible says are untrue.

If you can't prove that God doesn't exist then you shouldn't assert it.
Saying that theists haven't proved their position is enough.
You don't need to go the extra mile.

Pascal's Pager
User avatar
aka: the pretentious bigmouth
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 7,639 | Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2012

Listn2BlkSabth wrote:If you can't prove that God doesn't exist then you shouldn't assert it.
Saying that theists haven't proved their position is enough.
You don't need to go the extra mile.


QFT
Nathan Bateman wrote:After a long day of Turing tests, you gotta unwind.

Gimme a break
User avatar
You made humor the issue, not me.
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 3,010 | Offline
Joined: May 10, 2011

Listn2BlkSabth wrote:If you can't prove that God doesn't exist then you shouldn't assert it.

yea but it doesn't follow that the burden of proof falls on them.

proving God exists = possible

proving God doesn't exist = impossible
Cunnilingus wrote:Gimme a Break: Most underrated poster.

Listn2BlkSabth
User avatar
My brain's an asshole
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 1,445 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

Gimme a break wrote:
Listn2BlkSabth wrote:If you can't prove that God doesn't exist then you shouldn't assert it.

yea but it doesn't follow that the burden of proof falls on them.

proving God exists = possible

proving God doesn't exist = impossible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... n_of_proof
The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, affirmative or negative.
If the person either can't or refuses to provide proof, then the claim can be dismissed immediately without proof.
That's why it's foolish to claim things that can't be proven.
Leave that to the theists.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests