There are only two possibilities
so which is it welshboy? You folks don't want to say it's a lie because then it means you have to produce evidence. So instead you hide behind words to justify why you don't need to share any evidence for your beliefs, because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
66 comments
we dont have to prove it you retarded fuck, we arent the ones making absurd claims, like "everything was made by my imaginary friend 4000 years ago!!1"
by the way, using your logic: i demand that you prove that the world wasnt made by the invisible, intangible dragon that lives in my garage that only i can see and hear.
Uhmmm....that's not how it works.
YOU make the claim that he exists, that means that YOU have to com up with the evidence.
According to your logic:
1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Prove me wrong.
EDIT: Grrrr. Marrik beat me to it :)
Prove that invisible pink unicorns aren't stealing the left socks out of my dryer. I tried glue traps, but that just made a mess.
Although I cannot prove that a creator god does not exist. It's fairly easy to prove that the biblical god does not exist, by using biblical proof.
False dicotomy, there is other possibilities.
"So instead you hide behind words to justify why you don't need to share any evidence for your beliefs, because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE."
Do I even have to say it? Do I even need to point it out to you? You don't see it at all...
Alright....I'll say it: Mirror, mirror.
Option #6: The existence of God is a genuine mistake of understanding the world, rather than a thing of intentional deceit.
(I know, I know...pick, pick, pick. It's just a nuisance regarding the use of the word "lie".)
Oh, uh, I don't know which one ...
Audience: PICK NUMBER 2! PICK NUMBER 2!
Um, I'm going to have to go with, um, number 2.
Audience: *applause*
Third possibility, I don't know, so why don't you prove it Scar, because I don't believe you have any evidence outside the unproven propaganda in the Bible? Not proving it requires no evidence, a simple lack thereof is proof enough!
skyknight: 1
scarlets79: 0
Um...I've never denied it's a lie, and there is no burden of evidence. I have evidence supported with science, you have evidence in a 2,000 year old book that anyone could have lied in.
I guess the logic is slightly flawed. But the question was:
Martin: stop playing Portal, it's a great game but you're really cheapening it with the crappy references.
Well, I have no evidence that gnomes don't exist... Honestly, I'd rather believe in gnomes than God, anyway. They're cute little things and they give aid to woodland creatures.
Anyway, I do think there are a lot of people who will flat-out say 'God's existence is a lie.' So I dunno what this moron is even on about...
@ Tired of this crap
I think many atheists do try and provide evidence for why they don't believe in the Christian conception of God. I often point out to Christians what I believe are contradictions or inaccuracies in their theology or scripture. The problem is they always insist I must interpret things a different way (i.e. their way), and that the change in interpretation will (supposedly) reconcile the contradiction. Further, they insist, that I'm simply wrong if I don't do so. But I see their reasoning as an ad hoc attempt to shore up deficiencies which wouldn't exist in the first place if Christianity were true, and I see no reason to follow along. If God exists and writes books, it makes sense to me that he would not write in such a way that massive contortions of interpretation are required to make the text defensible.
Tired of this crap: I'm sorry that I cheapened portal for you.
Scarlet, honey, you're almost right. There are only two possibilities, but they are:
If you assert the first one, then you must prove it. If I tell you that the Persian rug in my living room is a magic carpet, you can quite rightly demand that I prove it, and prove it with something other than my own assertions, specious logic, and an old fairy tale book.
If I assert the second, you cannot demand proof because one cannot prove the negative: prove to me that I did not turn a lump of lead into gold. If I show you my wedding ring and tell you that is what I made out of the gold, if I spout a lot of pseudo-logic that makes no sense to you, if I show you an ancient book on alchemy, will you believe that I can turn lead into gold...even though I still live in a modest home and drive an 8-year-old car?
You cannot prove I cannot turn lead into gold, but a little common sense and seeing that I'm not fabulously rich will give you the clue that I am either lying or deluded. Just because you can't prove that I cannot do it, however, doesn't automatically mean that I can. And it's the same with proving God doesn't exist: can't be done, but that doesn't prove that he does.
the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim (aka. 'God is real'), and therefore, you must provide conclusive and verifiable evidence for the existence of (a) god(s). Then you must provide evidence that this/these god(s) is, in fact, the specific god(s) you professed in believing. Until you come up with the evidence, you can go suck my balls.
The paradigm is as follows: Maybe there is a white crow spelling around. However, in the lack of evidence, and unless it affects our lives, we don't care. Now, if you believe that there is a God and you act in a good manner towards your fellow guys, right. However, if you use a God you can't see to hate, shun and discriminate against everybody who doesn't think like you, don't be surprised if you turn people against Christianity.
Tired of this crap:belief was the lack of proof. It doesn't require faith to believe a proven truth (Douglas Adams and the babel fish ;)).
Later on:
3. Alternately, God may or may not exist, but outside of religious dogma, we have completely no proof, and besides, until we find proof, the argument's useless.
4. Pancakes.
It's #2, lie.
Any other questions?
His existence is a lie, and unfortunately for you, I don't have to prove it. The burden of proof lies on the Christians' shoulders. Whenever we believe in something, we must prove it exists. It's not up to the disbelieve to prove it doesn't exist.
False dichotomy. It could be a delusion, legend, hypothesis etc.
Seriously, could you prove to a devout Hindu that Vishnu is a lie?
I'm going to choose 3.) God does not exist.
An example:
Which is your default assumption, and which one would you require evidence for?
Of course, your argument is totally reversible, no?
You prove that God does exist, then?
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
Actually, we usually say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" because the other way round is (except in a few limited circumstances) an argument from ignorance .
An absence of evidence is an absence of evidence. If there is no evidence for a proposition then there is no basis for declaring it true or false, except where evidence is to be expected by the nature of the proposition.
Hence the statement "an 100 megaton H-bomb destroyed London this morning" is disconfirmed by a lack of any sign of damage to the UK capital. However the statement "a 100 megaton H-bomb is hidden somewhere in London this morning" is not disconfirmed if the authorities conduct a search and come up empty handed.
The problem in the religious case is deciding into which category claims of gods go. Many atheists will admit that it is not impossible that a god or gods may exist, but a high proportion of those will be quite adamant that if one did it would be highly unlikely to be the Abrahamic god. This is because while a lack of evidence for a god does not preclude there being a god, the lack of evidence for the god of the bible does - given what the bible claims for him - present a strong argument against his existence.
I pick:
Of course I don't need to share any evidence for my beliefs. They are my personal thoughts, nobody else's business.
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.
