Why Atheists and the Religous are Both Wrong

Theists draw their conclusions from countless eyewitness accounts of encounters between humans and offworld beings going back thousands of years, whereas atheists draw their conclusions from nothing!..

 

God is NOT religion and an Atheist usually leaves the door open for possibility. Most Agnostics are called Atheist by the religious.

If you do not believe in THEIR God you are not worthy.

 

Read slowly and thoughtfully: ALL atheists do NOT think alike.

Atheism means one doesn't believe in a god or gods PERIOD.

There are NO other common beliefs, no doctrines they must follow , no rules.

THEY are under no obligation to prove there are not gods .


IF I declare there are booga-booga-wonkas floating trough space it would be up to ME to prove it.

Those who don't believe in something I made up are under NO obligation to prove they DON'T exist...

 

Right, they often contradict each other.
Hey wait a minute, I thought it was only the Bible that's full of contradictions according to them?..

 

For over 50 years I have identified myself as an agnostic...and have had discussions about religion and philosophy with theists and atheists from MY agnostic perspective.

During all that time, I have NEVER had a theist call me an atheist. But I have had dozens upon dozens of atheists call me an atheist...some absolutely insisting on it.

 

No atheist has to "prove there are no gods"...BUT anyone who asserts there are no gods incurs the same burden of proof for that assertion as someone does who asserts, "there is a god."

And atheism does NOT mean "one doesn't believe in a god or gods."

Not having a "belief" in a god or gods is one of the attributes of an atheist.

It also is an attribute of an agnostic...but the attribute does not make the agnostic an atheist.

 

There is NOTHING to contradict.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. The end.

Whatever an IN DI VI DUAL (look it up, individual) atheist thinks on any subject has no bearing on what other atheists think.

 

What can't you get about "if someone MAKES SOMETHING UP (god or gods or booga booga wonkas) there is NO obligation on anyone's part to prove they don't exist"". ???


You obviously believe there HAVE to be entities, gods, that others must prove don't exist....talk about being locked in the box of "" if anyone claims anything others must prove them wrong".

 

They better hope they're right or there'll be no party time for them..
Jesus said- "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son...he told his servants- go out and invite to the banquet anyone you find" (Matt 22:2)"

 

NOTHING.

In fact, I wrote, "No atheist has to "prove there are no gods."

However, if a person asserts "there are no gods" (not all atheists do)....but IF A PERSON ASSERTS THAT...the person does bear the burden of proving his/her assertion.

What are you unable to understand about that?

I do not do "believing" at all...and I certainly DO NOT guess that there has to be entities or gods that others must prove do not exist.

But if someone is ASSERTING that no gods exist...the burden of proof for that assertion falls on him/her.

No one has to do that...and I have not suggested such a thing.

But if you make an assertion...you bear a burden to prove it.

 

I wonder why you think bible quotes are proof of anything....but I don't really care.............

- - - Updated - - -

So you believe there are booga booga wonkas because I said so....oh, OK.....

No, I don't have to prove nor disprove anyone else's assertions....

 

The Bible is simply a historical account of human interaction between humans and offworld beings, so if you throw it out, you'd have to throw out all other history books too..

 

Seriously, ask frank to substitute the Easter bunny for god in his arguments and watch what he does. It's hilarious.

 

No, it is not a factual history. ......and it's OPINIONS don't count or prove anything. .


I have an antique copy of Grimm's Fairy Tales and it doesn't seam sane to throw out my history books because I still own it.

 

I do not do "believing."

But if a person makes an assertion...they bear the burden of proving that assertion. If you assert there are no gods...you bear a burden of proving that there are no gods...just as a person who asserts, "there is a god" bears such a burden.

You should be able to understand that.

You are correct...and I have not said otherwise.

BUT if you make an assertion of your own...like "there are no gods"...the burden of proof does fall on you.

 

Huh? Were all the bible eyewitnesses hallucinating or what?
For example when this ghostly hand wrote on the wall "You're screwed mate" (Daniel ch 5) at evil Belshazzar's feast, did all the guests imagine it or what?

 

What can't you get about "if someone MAKES SOMETHING UP (god or gods or booga booga wonkas) there is NO obligation on anyone's part to prove they don't exist"". ???


I guess you can't.

- - - Updated - - -

I certainly wouldn't lend you my copy of Grimm's Fairy Tales!!! You'd believe every word !!!!

 

Nah mate it'd never get past my probing analytical mind..
For example I logically deduced long ago that Santa couldn't exist; I remember thinking soon after my 21st birthday "The Santa story is all hogwash!"

 

So the way you figure it, the claim that the Earth is not a spheroid is not the least bit outrageous. Have I got that about right?

And you figure that how, exactly?

Not necessarily, especially if the ego finds that something inconvenient. The hotter you are for your neighbor's wife, e.g., the more blissful ignorance of the Commandments becomes.

 

Guess whatever you want.

But if you, or ANYONE, asserts that there are no gods...that person bears the burden of proof for that assertion.

Not sure what you "can't get" about that...but that is your problem.

My suggestion; Do not make assertions which you cannot substantiate.

 

Fine, then you prove to me there are no booga booga wonkas.....................................it is your obligation

Prove to me there is no Santa Claus....


proving negatives? Tra la la lalla

 

Sorry I am correct and you know you have been proven wrong.

It is not a blind guess

 

No...Fox...it is NOT my obligation. I am NOT the one saying there are no booga booga wonkas. I would not say that, because I would then incur the obligation to substantiate it. And I do not intend to do that.

Same goes here.

IT is easy to prove a negative...you can do it. You just have to be careful about the negative you are attempting to prove. You have to make sure it is not so large that it cannot be done.

Try this one: Assert there is not a living, breathing elephant visible in your desk drawer...then PROVE it by opening the drawer.

In the meantime...if you assert there are no gods as part of REALITY...the burden of proof is on you as certainly as the burden of proof would be on someone asserting that there is a god.

Sorry you are having so much trouble with this. But I will stick with you until it finally sinks in.

 

Frank, in this instance I agree with you, asserting that 'there are no gods' does shift the burden of proof which is why I never do it without context and, I believe that when you actually listen to what atheists say and then explain, even if they use those words, it is more often than not just a shorthand way of expressing lack of belief. I have never seen you ask that Frank, not once, I do however see you continue to argue what you want to think an atheist has said even after they have explained this to you.

It is also incumbent upon everyone to agree and understand exactly what '(G)god(s)' means in the context being discussed. You can shift the burden of proof if an atheist makes a truly positive assertion but, you cannot shift the burden of being clear about what is under discussion, that rests with everyone. For example, in this thread, even without reading it, I can make a reasonable guess that there are people posting that do not understand how narrow the definition of '(G)god(s)' is that you are using. You choose to use the term 'gods' to describe a small subset of what we would normally accept as being a 'god' and you justify this by saying that you specifically use the word 'gods' to denote that but, it appears that you like it when you are the only person that knows this. You will always retain the 'burden of declaration' which is a responsibility that you never assume.

The problem that I have with your assertions regarding your agnosticism is that you present them as, to all intents and purposes, axiomatic but, they are not. What they are is a cheap parlour game where you make your definition of 'gods' trivially narrow so that it is valid for an instance that you are not transparent about. This is why you avoid any common definitions of 'gods', why you hand wave away analogies with Leprechauns etc and ultimately why your cheap point about atheism and theism being two equivalent sides of the same coin is a sham.

It's the 21st century Frank, you are allowed to be an atheist now.

 

Most intelligent atheists do not make the mistake Soup and Fox are making.

IF you think Soup is actually just expressing a "lack of belief"...you have not read what he is saying...and you have not read his arguments against what I have been saying.

I have.

Every time someone has asked for a clarification...I have given it. I have also given it without being asked many times.

In any case, I use "gods" so that it is understood that I am talking about ANY manifestation of the concept.

Anyone who cannot discuss the issue with me considering that...probably should not be discussing the issue at all.

The questions I asked you...which you still have not answered...go to exactly this point...and I suspect you realize that. Which is almost certainly why you are avoiding and evading answering them.

I have assumed it every time I have been asked...and I have assumed it voluntarily without being asked.

Here are the two versions of my agnosticism that I have used in this forum:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.



I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;
I do not know if there are no gods;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that they are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


There is nothing axiomatic about any of those things.

Answer my questions of earlier...and then suggest there is something axiomatic about what I said in these statements...and we can discuss it.

You enjoy insulting me...and I enjoy listening to your anger get the better of you. You enjoy disparaging me and my arguments...and I enjoy listening to you be less than you should be.

So...it is a win/win situation.

I've was allowed to be an atheist even in the 20th century, William.

I consider being agnostic far superior...so I'll stick with that.