Proving god is a lie

Author: Timid8967

Posts

Total: 223
Topic's author
#61
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I have never talked about the burden of proof, not that I can recall anyway.  Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise.  And I don't recall thinking otherwise either.  


Topic's author
#62
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you are referring to an interpretation of a fact, then no empirical evidence is not proof, but a deductive argument is not necessarily sound, and yes - dependent on the claim itself, empirical evidence is a proof. 
Please substantiate your assertions.  
#63
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
I have never talked about the burden of proof, not that I can recall anyway.  Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise.  And I don't recall thinking otherwise either.  

 How did know that you would point blank deny making statements and comments about burden of proof and where it lays? 



Timid8967 wrote: 
Butby suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and thatthey have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place inthings.  Let's take it back.
You must think everyone here was born just minutes ago.  There is a lot more to that comment of yours clearly saying that "we" and "us"   i.e. theist and non theist, should carry the burden of proof..

I told you, you are a fraud. I seen where you were trying to go with this thread the second you posted it and said so at the time.
#7  Stephen  Added05.10.21 12:10PM

Topic's author
#64
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I have never talked about the burden of proof, not that I can recall anyway.  Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise.  And I don't recall thinking otherwise either.  

 How did know that you would point blank deny making statements and comments about burden of proof and where it lays? 
Is that the best you can come up with? Seriously.  


Timid8967 wrote: 
Butby suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and thatthey have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place inthings.  Let's take it back.
You must think everyone here was born just minutes ago.  There is a lot more to that comment of yours clearly saying that "we" and "us"   i.e. theist and non theist, should carry the burden of proof..
I did not deny that the theists have the burden of proof.  I said we need to stop being so bloody up ourselves all of the time. I do think we need to take it back.  I think we do non-theism and atheism a disservice by always putting it on the theist. Yes Theists do have the b. of proof. Yet, non-theists have the truth.  We don't need to be on the back foot. And only a moron would think that I was suggesting otherwise.  It is not me who is the fraud. I want to see a better dialogue between religious people and non-religious people - and it is persons such as yourself - who give atheists a bad name - dogmatic and stupid.  

Unless we are able to find a way to dialogue then these arguments go round and round in circles.  That is where your topics generally end up. In a circular fashion over and over again. 





#65
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

I have never talked about the burden of proof, not that I can recall anyway.  Let me be clear. Theists have the burden of proof. I cannot recall ever saying otherwise.  And I don't recall thinking otherwise either.  

 How did know that you would point blank deny making statements and comments about burden of proof and where it lays? 
Is that the best you can come up with? Seriously.  
It shows you for what you are as does the comment you deny even making. 

Here have another look at your own fkn comment. 

You say " I have never talked about the burden of proof,"  yet here you are clears as day :

Timid8967 wrote: But by suggesting that the theist has to make the first move - and that they have the burden of proof, we give up our natural place in things.  Let's take it back. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1326-how-atheists-debate-religion?page=1&post_number=2020


I did not deny that the theists have the burden of proof. 

Yes you have . The whole of that comment - YOUR COMMENT! - is saying the burden of proof should be on "us and "we"  the atheists./non atheist.  Stop taking people for complete twats. If it according to you the burden of proof should be on "us" & "we" <<<   then that means not on the theist.   You have been caught out.
 

 I said we need to stop being so bloody up ourselves all of the time.

 "we" again. bloody minded about what, exactly? 



I do think we need to take it back. 

Take what back?  What is that we have given away or lost or had but don't have now,  to have to take it back.



I think we do non-theism and atheism a disservice by always putting it on the theist.

 So again you ARE saying that "we & "us"   should shoulder the burden. You really are full of shite!



Yes Theists do have the b. of proof.

 Yes they do, but you keep flipping from them to "we " & "us" 



Yet, non-theists have the truth.

What truth?



  We don't need to be on the back foot.

 I have never felt on the backfoot. I have ALWAYS found it is the theist to be on the back foot. 


It is not me who is the fraud.
I have just shown you to be a complete fraud .  "I have never talked about the burden of proof, "  is what you said. just as I knew you would. I have shown you to be a liar and afraid. 

I want to see a better dialogue between religious people and non-religious people - and it is persons such as yourself - who give atheists a bad name - dogmatic and stupid.  

That is  only your opinion, and it counts for nothing .







Topic's author
#66
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Stop trying to find a conspiracy behind every comment you come across. 

You want so much to believe that I am someone else that you have lost perspective.  I say "get a life".

I AM NOT TRADESECRET.  No matter how much you want to believe this. 

I am a non-theist who has consistently reflected this on this forum. 

I called you out and you did not like it.  Get over it.  

I do think that non-theists and atheists give too much airtime to theists.  

I do think that theists hold the B. of P. 

YET - I also think that if atheists and non-theists continue to hold to this ridiculous standard that we are going to continue to go around and around in circles. 

EVERY forum in this world - does that. WHY? because despite the fact that athiests and non-theists hold the truth in relation to reality - they want to continue to do the dumb thing and say-  it is theist who needs to prove it.   so does anyone really wonder why this story never goes anywhere.  The theist runs around the atheist.  Yet the atheist allows the theist to do so - because of this dumb burden of proof.  

So call me a fraud if it makes you sleep better at nite.  Yet the simple fact is you are WRONG.  You are the fraud. You are dogmatic -- as dogmatic as any religious person I have had seen.  You just deny it. You just laugh at this notion.  You ARE the FOOL.  





#67
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
lol, "unnecessary harm" in a broader sense leads to point out unnecessary anything in this world. Unnecessary success, unnecessary birth of yours...... Your realization of what's necessary or not is certainly not a match of God's understanding
#68
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... its also a right that all people have?
Was that a rhetorical question? Nonetheless I’ll answer it anyway, (and this answer extends to the forum you recently made as well) God determines what our rights are so to criticize Him in that regard is blasphemous because no one would know better than Him.

You shouldn't have to worry about not being able to afford it
What we should and shouldn’t worry about is a separate issue, fact of the matter is people starving doesn’t prove God isn’t all-loving, in fact logic says nothing can prove that because you can’t prove a negative.
#69
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Any  examples?

#70
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Timid8967
Science is inductive and can never deal in epistemic certainty.
#71
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Timid8967
Um...

premise 1: Everything in our universe is made of cheese
premise 2: The earth is located in the universe
Conclusion: Therefore the earth is made of cheese

That is a syllogism, but despite the fact that it's valid, it is not sound. Again, syllogisms aren't necessarily sound bud. 
#72
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Safalcon7
who cares what god thinks, god doesn't exist accept as an idea in your head. So at that point its what you disagree with.
#73
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Um.... yes - yes you can - you can indeed prove that god does not love people, because love is a specific claim that takes certain qualities to actually be there, so the evidence of people starving is actually evidence of god's not loving people. Furthermore, no, no it isn't because if that were the case, rights would be completely arbitrary, just as subjective as my morality. 
#74
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
God is not just an idea for sure. If you presume that God doesn't exist outside of an idea and then put forward your claim of God not being all-loving, you have a seriously flawed methodology to argue in terms of free will or determinism. Even if you're an atheist you must disprove God within God's own arsenal by questioning him, not by cancelling him out prior to your opening statements.
#75
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
because love is a specific claim that takes certain qualities to actually be there
On the contrary it’s an emotion, and there’s no way you can no how someone (or God) emotes better than them.

Furthermore, no, no it isn't because if that were the case, rights would be completely arbitrary
Explain
#76
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Because with life comes death, it's not limited to kids. Parents could've done something, they had the freewill to not be parents to children they can't support.

Cause if you live in a place where people starve you can access  birth control? Or you would be of a mind to never have sex? Or be forced into sex. 
#77
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Timid8967
I have only have to prove there is a god or gods if I expect you to believe in them. If I don't I don't have to do anything for you or anyone  else. 
#78
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Safalcon7
Um... no - not quite how claims work my dude. Regardless you made a new claim
our realization of what's necessary or not is certainly not a match of God's understanding
If you want to make any claim regarding god's understanding you necessarily must demonstrate that is different from your understanding. My claim there wasn't that god doesn't exist, though they don't, it was that the god you are talking about exists only in your mind. 
#79
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Um yes - it is an emotion - having that emotion is a specific claim - you can quite easily observe the qualities that would be present in an all-loving being. And rights being arbitrary if god made them? Pretty easy, because its completely dependent on the situation, for example, the people killed in the flood - god decided they no longer had a right to life. That's entirely arbitrary, and based on their perspective. 
#80
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Cause if you live in a place where people starve you can access  birth control? Or you would be of a mind to never have sex? Or be forced into sex. 
If you’re able to carry a child to term then there’s no way that would be possible under starvation.
#81
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
having that emotion is a specific claim
It’s only a claim if it’s professed in some way shape or form but if it’s kept to yourself it’s not a claim, honestly love in the grand scheme of things isn’t something that can be concretely proven, it all comes down to how genuine or sincere someone comes across and if you believe them.

Pretty easy, because its completely dependent on the situation
What dictionary you read that defines arbitrary as dependent on the situation (call me semantic all you want, I embrace the label)?

That's entirely arbitrary, and based on their perspective.
But you’re liking God’s perspective to your average Joe and that’s blasphemous, if there’s any rule in regards to the everyday person than God is clearly the exception.
#82
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Obviously you can since women in countries with starvation give birth all the time. www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/woman_and_hunger_facts.htm
#83
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I stand corrected, but clearly if one is forced into sex my argument doesn’t apply to them, but it does apply to the rapist because they had the free will to not rape.
#84
Safalcon7
Safalcon7's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 73
0
1
7
Safalcon7's avatar
Safalcon7
0
1
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you want to make any claim regarding god's understanding you necessarily must demonstrate that is different from your understanding.
Lol the name "God" by definition demonstrates the difference.

My claim there wasn't that god doesn't exist, though they don't, it was that the god you are talking about exists only in your mind. 
Initially, we were talking about how God couldn't save lives from harm and then you're just claiming that he's just an abstract concept- that's why. So, basically, you're reducing God to a minima to nil and then trying to challenge his system. That's not how you disprove a theory. You gotta debunk the theory from within the framework the theory is prevalent in. Otherwise its like saying the earth ain't flat cause its spherical without checking on the evidences. 
#85
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Wrong - because we can actually OBSERVE the traits that one possesses whenever they are loving towards another individual, and whenever that individual claims ot be all-loving, it is especially noticeable. Um... yes, god is your average joe of making moral decisions, would you like me to list the moral contradictions made by him alphabetically or sequentially? In fact, the god from the bible is below average when it comes to making morally consistent positions, he's terribly inconsistent. You seemed to take my substantiation of god's arbitrary-ness wrong - its however he feels in the situation, based on the chance not actual moral reasoning

using unlimited personal power without considering other people's rights or wishes:

#86
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Safalcon7
No... no you don't - because if there is no evidence of that framework EVEN existing, then there is nothing but speculation. That is what you have given me so far. What evidence do you have of god's understanding as you understand it? Because defacto it has to be yours unless you can demonstrate that their is an understanding of god that you have access to.
#87
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong - because we can actually OBSERVE the traits that one possesses whenever they are loving towards another individual, and whenever that individual claims ot be all-loving, it is especially noticeable. 
Or they’re just very good actors that fooled you.

Um... yes, god is your average joe of making moral decisions, would you like me to list the moral contradictions made by him alphabetically or sequentially? In fact, the god from the bible is below average when it comes to making morally consistent positions, he's terribly inconsistent.

So what do you say to those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible?

#88
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Do you have any actual substantiation? Because you've offered a counter proposition, but you have no substantiation regarding it - furthermore - I would point you towards my Anti-theism thread - it explains it fairly comprehensively, but to sum it up - absolute power will absolutely corrupt. 
#89
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
absolute power will absolutely corrupt. 
What is this in response to?
#90
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
absolute power will absolutely corrupt. 
That is entirely dependent on one's corruptibility. Just because it is said no one is perfect does not preclude the potential to be so. Perfection insulates against corruption.
Yes, yes, I understand the argument that no one is perfect. Tell me, is there a legitimate reason why we age? At cellular level, there is absolutely no reason why the cell should not be immortal, but, they do suffer mortality. If we could figure out why that is so, and correct it, why should we not also figure out how to be perfect? I do not see either being error-prone, or indefinitely mortal as necessary restrictions, but then, as you know, I don't accept limitations. I acknowledge they exist, but do not acknowledge that they must exist.