God shall smite thee.. or not.

Doesn't it bother you atheists that you are using the exact same argument as the religeous ones, but only reversed?

- You can't prove that goes doesn't exist.
- I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist.

- true until proven false
- false until proven true

How can a self respecting man of science rape logic like this?

What makes you so confident that existence or nonexistence is unprovable?  Can you prove it?

My intuition is that a higher power would be able to impart knowledge of truth.  I feel like the nonexistent case would have less likelihood of a proof, but I guess maybe it's there and they can't articulate it in a way that convinces me.  I can't really feel confident in anything other than my own lack of understanding.  I don't really understand the attitude that a person on the correct side with proof should look down on every person who misunderstands though.

>>2
What makes you so confiblah.. Those were clearly not my arguments. They're the arguments of religeous people and atheists. Read again, dummy. My point is that both arguments are invalid. Atheists are no better than religeous people if they can't see this. Bringing probability into the mix doesn't make their core argument any more valid, it only makes their core belief to be "more likely to be true".

``more likely to be true''

>>1
we are using the same arguments to point wrongs in theoists' logic
(check: FSM, invisible pink unicorn)

>>5
yet.. you treat your equally flawed argument as valid. Unless you're an agnostic troll.

The majority of antitheists are idiot children.  If arguing with stupid people helps you feel better about yourself, that's all well and good, but please take this shit to the imageboards.

>>7
I can't, I'm fucking banned. And the mods don't want to fix it.

Just who are you calling stupid anyhow? First it seems to be me, then it's the ones I'm arguing with.. make up your mind.

ttp://youtu.be/yD_-hSCLRmg

http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/o/8538

Any claim of a "god" thing requires PROOF. No such proof exists. So you religfreaks ARE FUCKING WRONG RIGHT OUT OF THE FUCKING GATE.

>>11
Yeah.. the opposite also required proof. PROOF even.

The non-existence of something can never be proven. You can prove things don't exist within certain parameters, but it's overall existence cannot be disproven.

Whenever someone makes a claim to the existence or non-existence of something, it is their burden to prove it. However, atheists do not make any claims. Most don't say god doesn't exist. What they are saying is, "Until you prove there is a god, we won't believe it." Therefore it is up to the religious person making the claim that the burden falls upon.


Having a belief in god(positive or negative) makes a claim. Atheism is the "lack" of a belief in god, which makes no claim either way.

Think of it this way:
+1 = positive belief.
-1 = negative belief.
 0 = lack of belief.

Some atheists do make the claim that god does not exist. If you come across one, have them prove it. There are some pretty god arguments to disprove god. And certain gods, such as the christian god, depending upon definitions, can be logically disproven.

>>13
>The non-existence of something can never be proven.
a) That doesn't mean that the hypothetical proof is of any less importance to make that factual statement.
b) You could theoretically prove that this "something" CANNOT exist, thereby implying that it DOESN'T exist.

>it is their burden to prove it
Indeed. So atheists shouldn't go around saying there is no god without proof. And that is actually what true atheists say. If they don't, as you suggest, then they're actually agnostic and I have no problem with them. (as long as they can back up their fucking statements like I'm doing right here)

Now reading the latter part of your post we seem to be of roughly the same oppinion, only that my understanding of an actual atheist is one who denies the existance of god. ("there IS NO god")

It's not that there's no "god" but the christian/jewish god yaweh has long been proven to not exist. Earth has existed longer than the ohhhh my god prophets said that they were told it existed, along with everything else such as the earth being the center of existence. But this goes across the board, every religion is flat out wrong and has been wrong since the advent of science (which had until that point been stifled by the church to maintain power).

Sure, people still believe in the "values" and try to justify keeping the religion they had forced on them and then forcing it on their kids, but anyone trying to imply for a second that any of the gods of any of the churches exists (besides maybe buddhism which makes no absurd claims about existence that have been proven wrong, let alone claiming the existence of some all powerful being) is going way too far and only sets humanity back another pace.

That isn't to say that there isn't a "god" (which is an ambiguous concept in and of itself), there could be, but it should be obvious to everyone that the ones employed by the major religions are just millenia old fairy tales that are nothing but cruft.

Welcome to Asatru ladies and gentlemen were the only out standing belief is to be honourable, that means kind, couragess (spelling). Personally I think this is better than the Christy fags.

>>1
I agree with you that positively stating one way or the other on the subject is a gross misjudgement.  That becomes a case of pot-kettle-black.  But I think you're missing some key information.

Compare for an instant that God is equivalent to the classical element Aether.  At one point it was a widely believed idea that helped make the universe function.  Now, it's all well and good to be able to label something that you don't know how it works.  But it falls flat when scrutinized.  God was given credit for a lot of things in history.  But as we chip away we see less and less necessity for a blanket term "God" to help define a why.  Especially when the god is not well defined.  Aether also was well lauded as a means that things worked in the universe until the time came to put it aside.  While it did fill in some gaps, the nature of the structure itself is not well defined. 

This is what you may see as "false until proven true".  As science has progressed, it has learned to assume the role that if there is no evidence, then you cannot support your claim.  It is fine to use your experiences as conjecture.  But most people confuse conjecture for theory and theory for fact skipping hypothesis in the middle.  So, in a science-y mindset (rational if you will) you must present some evidence that something exists before you can claim it does.  Contrast with gravity.  We do not fully understand all the mechanics of gravity within the universe but we have evidence of it.

As far as positive atheism (those that claim aloud that there is no god), there are multiple perspectives.

The first group is the usual 16 year old kids who are trying to be anti-conformist.  You may find these in high schools or /b/.  They brag loudly and proudly that there is no God(s).

Another group says "There is no god" because it is faster and more socially understood amongst rational atheists as "I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of any god(s)." 

I can understand your frustration with those two groups.  It would be confusing to the layman who does believe in a deity where the phrasing doesn't need to be explained -though the question "which one?" should always be at the forefront of your mind-.

I am in the latter group.  I do not believe there is sufficient evidence that there is a god.  My default position is that I have found all promises of gods lacking in one moral/ethical way or another.  I've found all opposition to my way of thinking to lack basic evidence for their cause. 

I do not completely throw out the idea of there being a god.  I can entertain the idea and would have no major life problems if there were one.  I still wouldn't care about them. 

If it is a vengeful god, then I want nothing to do with them and will tell them so at the first opportunity.  I find this type morally reprehensible.

If it is a loving god, then I have nothing to be concerned about.  I merely am using the rational tools a creator gave me to think for myself. 

If it is an "deist" style god, then it is indifferent to my existence as much as I am to its.  The sun doesn't care about me, makes it so my food grows, gives me warmth, and I see it every day.  I'm not going to start worshiping it.

I would be interested if there was ever evidence of a god to exist.  I'd certainly have a lot of questions I'd like answered.  On the whole though, I've found that everything in my life has not be influenced by greater than chance. 

There are other forms of atheists that do exist (Raleans, Buddhists, Negative Atheism, Humanists, etc.)  But I can't speak for them.  I am not even entirely speaking of the two man groups that bother you.  But hopefully, this will give you some perspective.

yea, athiest are really easy to troll these days. they are one of the most wide-spread and out-spoken of all the religions.

Its so ironic, really. the leaders of the atheists do nothing but make shit up and try to convert people. just like the ones they jeer at.

:) i have alot of fun lately, they are beganing to question themselves and finding answers in a red-neck style philosophy, glad to know others are eating while the soup is hot :)

It's more about the fact that you shouldn't assume things unnecessarily when there's no real reason to, and try to find the truth.

It's pretty shallow to play a word game to make it seem a simple reversal. Shame on you.

the idea behind athiest beliefs are somewhat based upon that facts in the bible are wrong. there are more facts protesting against christianity/whatever religion one chooses to believe, than there are for it. it is not simply a "well i dont see it so its not real" idea.

I find that you're not considering all the aspects in your argument.
Btw, I rather be a agnostic then a religious or an atheistic.

What the eff? If you say so buddy. So you think those arguments were created by your bible? HA!

trolling... while lol'ing