"You cannot prove a Negative" Another Claim?

Well on this thread, the topic is:

Meaning, asking someone to prove that something does not exist, is silly.

We're off topic, but...

I view theists as slightly delusional - sorry.

I'm in agreement with this. Dawkins once said that theists have chosen to ignore 1000's of god, which have previously "existed", atheists just go one god further. He's right.

But I can say this. When there is no evidence for something, there is no evidence. If someone claims that something exists in the absence of evidence, the onus is upon them to justify it. Scientists are looking for the "god particle" (they hate it being nicknamed that - titter), so they've spent billions on making a machine to to find it. They are manning up and attempting to find evidence of what they have theorised. Theists are not doing this. Theists are saying "it exists", the responsibility is for you to prove it doesn't - which is nonsense.

"We" atheists, do not have a "faith", that's you guys. We are defined by our absense of faith. In this perspective, we also do not really have a position further than "we do not believe in god". It does not take "faith" to take this stance. We do not have an "atheist religion" that we follow.

What nihilistic tendancies would they be? If you have a lot of issues with it, please say what they are.

 

OK. I believe that you are actually an atheist. I have no proof whatsoever and I say that the burden of proof is upon you.

Furthermore, I believe that you are a murderer. Again, I have no proof whatsoever; no weapon, no motive and I say that the burden of proof is upon you.

Do you see?

You are completely wrong on this point. The burden of proof lays upon the person making the claim.

 

Then list them here.

 

#1 - Once again, you are simply and utterly wrong. You can indeed prove a negative and people do it all the time.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

"But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional
logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero."

#2 - If you believe something without any evidence than, by definition, what you are using is faith. Are you presenting any evidence that there is no God? Is this evidence conclusive and testably scientific?

Then what you are using is faith.

#3 - given that every statement you have made is verifably false, who exactly is it that is delusional?

And if we are walking around considering everyone else delusional? Well, perhaps you can see why atheists are the least trusted, both emotionally and intellectually, of all faith groups.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

Just might have something to do with running around arrogantly considering other people delusional, especially when the standards of judgeing others as delusional clearly indicate the same problem to a worse degree in the judger.

Funny that the Bible warns about such behavior?

 

The links were provided. Being lazy is not an indication of there being no evidence. Its an indication of laziness.

But yes, pulling an ostrich ad avoiding all evidence does indeed mean that there is no evidence for the delusional one.

Funny, you sound just like a creationist.

 

We've met our burden of proof, in a preponderance of the evidence case.

And, it just so happens that I have a membership card in my church. That would be one way to verify that I am indeed not an atheist. Indeed, we have thousands of posts in which I clearly indicate that I am Christian and believe in God, but YOU think otherwise?

Either one of us could examine the evidential record and arrive at the conclusion that I am not an atheist. Anyone could. Yet you claim this is not possible?

Well, then clearly you are not motivated ny logical problem solving, a search for truth, or evidence in the slightest.

Only atheists think that logic exists to obfuscate the obvious for some reason.

BTW - you are making a claim.

That there is no God and anyone who thinks so is delusional. Back it up slick.

Now, how about you actually read the proof rather than just the first sentence and think that magic means the logic proof is wrong because you .... come up with a horrible and ANOTHER easily disproven example. Or do you think yourself so superior to everyone that you already know what we are going to say?

 

of course.
one can live without thinking about his/her existence.
no one can force someone to think.

see above.

 

The problem here is that claiming an absolute belief in something you cannot prove is called.......... say it with me now...... FAITH! The very thing atheists ridicule religious people for.

This is where the atheists' "gotcha" card blows up in their face.

It's one thing to believe that the existence of God is improbable based on tangiable evidence you are currently observing, but to state emphatically that, "God does not exist," with no way to ever prove it is a logical fallacy.

 

LOL, except that your entire rant is based on misrepresentations of atheist claims, rendering it all irrelevant.

So, no.

 

There's that BS paper again. You consistently trot this crap out even though it has been shown to be junk countless times. And every time, you have conveniently ignored those posts.

Of course it does - it's just a simple matter of self-preservation.

 

Who is ignoring what?

Lets try standards again, as atheists continue to have problems with them.

What is a better arguement that a negative cannot be proven?

A published paper from a professional (an actual expert) in a peer reviewed journal that has several examples of how it can indeed be done.

Or the word of an atheist that it cannot backed by nothing - again.

Once again, we see the self congratulatory claims of atheists, its been done, but just as then, they cannot offer up anything other than an unsupported claim.

US claims:

#1 - that you can't prove a negative.

#2 - Gee, there is a rebuttal somewhere out there.

#3 - Its YOU, not atheists, that are ignoring things that do not conform to your world view! As seen by .... who the hell knows.

How about you actually rebut the article for a change?

Oh irony of irony.

Wouldn't it be nice to see an atheist apply their standard to their position before they applied it to everyone else's?

 

Oh look, MORE deliberate ignorance.

Most of the articles that are used in support come from atheist sources. So, clearly they are misrepresentations.

Anything to avoid having to acknowledge what faith says.

And no, the claims made in that note are routinely made by atheists, as I wrote that in direct response to what an atheist DID - Triffidifood.

I guess you enjoy being speculative and wrong?

 

In the context I am going to use it, yes it has a lot to do with atheism and your false paradigm, well I will demonstrate that you are living a false paradigm if you participate. I am not saying that you are being deceptive or that you are making these false claims purposely. When someone in denial can not make the connection between rationalizing and reality sometimes props and tools have to be used by an outsider (that would be me), to get you to see my beliefs and yours in a different way. that is all I am trying to do. The science stuff was just an analogical example and I had hoped to use converse projection as well. I could use non scientific examples if you want.

You say I can not prove a negative and that atheism is this and that and that we have the burden of proof etc etc...However you are arbitrarily rejecting every attempt before they begin! BTW that is a hallmark of denial! Anyway if you will not even consider alternative ways to rebut your claims how can you say that you are debating or even discussing the issue???

Rev A

 

Almost every time you've linked to this paper (and it's been a lot), I've responded with a link to my original rebuttal which contained all the info. You've ignored it every time. Conveniently, this once when I didn't link to it, you respond simply with vitriolic ad homs about how atheists can't back anything up.

You fool no one with your bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Anyway, here it is ... again ...

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/196829-what-atheism-22.html#post4210004

So what if the author is a supposed "expert"? Experts can be wrong also. In fact, this "expert" got some very basic things wrong, which much of the rest of the paper is based on, making all those arguments irrelevant - and incorrect. Such as...

Just a quick note - my statement of "A double negative, by definition, is equivalent to the positive" should technically read, "A double negative, by definition, is equivalent to itself". The original quoted text above still works in this context, but the latter is more specific.

 

Oh look, another straw man. How ironic that you would misrepresent my statements pointing out your misrepresentations.

I wasn't addressing the articles. I was addressing the fact that your arguments are misrepresentations of atheist claims. Whether or not the articles are correct is irrelevant.

Get it yet? Somehow I doubt it.

Anything to avoid an honest discussion.

 

Experts could be wrong, therefore they are? That is stupid.

How about you actually offer up an arguement rather than just blind speculation - after all, you claim to have done it before, so it shouldn't be hard.

And a double negative is just a grammer error, it has nothing to do with anything written in the arguement you apparently still haven't even bothered to read.

Closed minded a bit?

BTW - what atheism is has nothing to do with proving a negative nor does it have anything to do with whether or not it has a burden of proof. What you linked is basically, "Nu uh!" and doesn't have a damb thing to do with the actual link I posted about proving a negative.

It can be done. You'e just wrong and thinking that disagreement means that you are automatically correct, you aren't.

 

"Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Younger therefore dumber)

My feelings are very similar to Dr Craigs;

Subject: Definition of Atheism

In my discussions with atheists, they are using the term that they "lack belief in God". They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God.
What would be a good response to this?
Thank you for your time,
Steven

Dr. Craig responds:

Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying , “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.

But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses,

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”


eh?

Rev A

 

Oh look, ANOTHER atheist throwing out childish accusations.

YOu claim they are misleading, and yet they are direct quotes from atheists - so how are they misleading?

because when atheists are held to task and shortcoming are exposed in their beliefs, well, even what they are saying isn't really accurate.

Apparently, despite several atheists saying these things:

1. No burden of proof.

2. can't prove a negative.

Well, now actually that is not really what they believe.

Except the lot of you are saying it, and its wrong - not misquoted. Anything to not be wrong. Atheism is simply emotion - nothing more.

 

I think the old fashioned atheism is more than an emotion. By old fashioned atheism I mean an atheist that claims it's impossible (or MAYBE for all practical purposes) for God to exist. However, as per Craig and per neutral and per Rev A etc. has shown; THE PRESUMPTION OF ATHEISM is a farce. As per Craig the new atheist in holding the 'presumption of atheism' which includes those atheists who claim they have no burden of proof etc is being dishonest with himself and anyone close enough to swallow the deceptive and I say cowardly prattle he vends.

Dr Craig so succinctly puts it; Atheism that claims it has no burden of proof is "merely psychological state". In other words the modern re-definition of atheism would tell us that "even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists!" Dr Craig goes on; "In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God." Ha ha indeed! An atheist Cat! An atheist baby!!! How dang silly can these charlatans be?

So Craig makes the ultimate CORRECT conclusion that exposes those that claim “NO ONE CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE” as liars and deceivers or maybe simply uneducated or at best living in denial or self deception! Dr Craig tells us ; "many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. Indeed how many times have we metaphysical spiritual religious types heard that?

Dr concludes with “ They (the modern atheists that claim they have no burden of proof AKA those that practice ‘presumptive atheism’ are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities. This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not? ”

Dr Craig and like minded PhDs such as Dr Koon and others see right through the cowardly attempts of modern PE Atheists to avoid even debating their beliefs. They as we understand that PE demonstrates the exceedingly frailty of atheist position. They are unable to defend their atheism so they choose PE Atheism in the desperate hope they can avoid having atheism exposed for what it is. At best a falsehood founded on little more the fear and or hate of God. Don't get me wrong there are many moral, ethical, intelligent and brave atheists who use science etc to defend their beliefs. I highly respect those peers. However 'honest atheism's' redheaded stepchild, ie PE Atheism is ultimately indefensible as are most lies and falsehoods.

~rv~

Ps I will say that I respect an atheist that has the gonads and the honesty to defend his ‘beliefs’. I have fairly ZERO respect for an so called atheist that claims the lie of ‘presumptive atheism’.

 

All, I'm reading is "blah blah blah" tbh. If there is nothing, there is zero evidence of it and therefore it cannot be shown.

 

I don't want links, I want YOUR opinion. If I wanted simply to read the opinion of writers, I'd google it, but I don't.

I want your opinion of the evidence of god, this is certainly not laziness on my behalf. I'm not posting links to Dawkins' web site and saying "read this", I'm giving you MY OPINION, using my logic.

Have the decency to do the same.

 

No you haven't. You've posted links to other people's work, as previously stated, I want YOUR OPINION, in YOUR WORDS.

Great, now we're getting somewhere. You've demonstrated that indeed you are a theist, now prove god exists (without linking to other peoples words and work).

Rubbish. You claim that atheists use logic to deliberately cloud the waters of truth? OMG! Logic is logic. Plain and simple. It cannot be used in this way.

Simple, prove in your own words that god exists.

Again, we're still waiting on you to use your own words to demonstrate that god exists. I think you're the one clouding the issue. The bottom line is that all you have is a bible and the words of a preacher, these are the two things which you hold as "truths", and evidence that god exists.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My point is that I do not need to believe in quarks and black holes and big bang theory, in order to be an atheist. This doesn't mean that I haven't or don't consider my existance and it doesn't mean that I don't think. It means I don't believe in god. Stop. End.

 

The issue with this article is that it sets off on a false premise. As indeed this thread does.

The absence of god is not a negative; it is a zero.

Logic can of course demonstrate a "positive" and a "negative", but "zero" is a different ball game.

A simple equation would be:

A+B = god

Where A and B are evidences of god. I'm waiting for a theist to provide the variable A and B.

The argument here is that "god" can be demonstrated in this equation. My argument is that A and B are zero (there is no evidence of god), therefore god does not exist. Of course I can also honestly say, just because there is no evidence, does not make it do. Which is correct. But there is also no evidence of the monster underneath a childs bed. Only in the over active imagination of the childs brain, which has had the notion of a monster planted into it, can small "evidences" become apparently real.... a creaking floor board, a branch rattling on the side of the bedroom - "EVIDENCE" in the childs mind. In reality of course, it was not evidence. This argument demonstrates that we are not looking for a "negative" claim; we are looking for a "zero" claim.

Now can someone please in their own words, provide evidence of god, that we can plug into the "existance of god" formula?

 

Being an Atheist is proof that a person can prove a negative. By being an Atheist you are considered a non-theist.

The prefix "non-" is an indicator of 'negation'.
"ne·ga·tion (n-gshn)
n.
1. The act or process of negating.
2. A denial, contradiction, or negative statement.
3. The opposite or absence of something regarded as actual, positive, or affirmative."

A partial definition of the word 'negative' is:
"3. Grammar A word or part of a word, such as no, not, or non-, that indicates negation. See Usage Note at double negative."

The complete definition is found here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negative