I guess Samphire really doesn’t see that coming onto a creation blog, making all kinds of challenges to people over a comment board, and picking apart the bible (which they obviously already have studied somewhat)— is telltale proof that God is working on them.
Any atheist, non-christian, who comes onto a creation blog to engage in debate is just a short step away from finding out something they DESPERATELY don’t want to believe.
I was an atheist, until I realized atheists REALLY DON’T EXIST! Since they cannot prove “there is no god”, they are technically what is referred to as “agnostic”— meaning the just don’t KNOW.
So once you realize it is impossible to “prove a negative”— the “atheist” loses their steam.
35 comments
"Impossible to prove a negative" is a negative in itself, hence by its own logic kills itself.
Atheists don't believe there are gods, most make no claims to being able to prove it.
Incorrect. The only rational stance is to assume non existence until proven to exist precisely because proving absence is impossible. Furthermore, if you believe in one unprovable god without proof, the only consistent thing is to believe in all unprovable gods without proof, otherwise your derivation of beliefs inconsistent and thus irrational.
"Any atheist, non-christian, who comes onto a creation blog to engage in debate is just a short step away from finding out something they DESPERATELY don't want to believe."
By this definition, everyone is an agnostic because no one - not even the fundiest fundy or most extreme atheist really "knows" whether there is a god (though it's pretty obvious that if there is a deity, the jerk described in the christian babble ain't it). But I don't believe dutchinch was ever really an atheist any more than I believe that there are mass conversions to creationism.
By that logic, all fundies believe in all the gods that were ever worshipped, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because they claim not to.
I was a Christian, until I realized Christians REALLY DON’T EXIST! Since they cannot prove “there is a god”, they are technically what is referred to as “agnostic”
meaning the just don’t KNOW.
I heard this argument before, but they always seem unable to comprehend that since theists can't prove the existence of their deity, they're agnostics as well, making word useless.
"So once you realize it is impossible to “prove a negative”
the “atheist” loses their steam."As an atheist, I encounter this argument often. I DO admit that I cannot absolutely, positively prove that their is no god, however, at every turn there is such a complete lack of evidence for god that I can't believe in a god. Everything points to the non-existence of gods and all other things super-natural.
Bring me some credible proof of God, and I will believe in God.
Yet another person who does not realize that the burden of proof lies with the positive claim, not the negative one.
As the good Mr. Dawkins has said, while it may be impossible to prove a negative, it is completely possible to compute a probability. Every event that could ever occur is based on a probability, not certainty (it's possible that I have my memory erased and rewritten every 2 seconds, but the probability of that occuring is idiotically low), so we are judging the existence of God in the same way in which we judge everything else we see. Since the existence of God can be shown to be improbable, we shall assume that he does not exist until we receive proof to the contrary.
And again, that's why the burden of proof is on YOU, not THEM. You can only prove that something is there, but you haven't proved it yet.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
