[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33058219]No, its more like your point did an immediate U-turn, performed a corkscrew spin, dove straight down, tried to pull back up, and crashed on impact with the ground coincidentally near an airshow.[/QUOTE]
If that means that no one fucking gets what i'm trying to say, then yes, thats how bad of a fail it was.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33058319]I don't subscribe to the idea that one can just say 'I believe it' and waive all burden of proof. Would you treat the idea that the universe was created by a sentient popsicle with the same validity as the teachings of Islam or Judaism? Either way, they have no proof, and you cannot simply say "it's my belief" and remove responsibility for proof from yourself.
There is no 'Church of Atheism' nor is there a strict guideline for what an Atheist is, other than a lack of belief in God, which is the default position of pretty much anyone, because it a lack of belief, not a faith in disbelief.[/QUOTE]
You said 'faith' in your second paragraph.
Do you have any idea what it means? If you did, you wouldn't have posted your first paragraph.
If you want to put it like that though, then nobody should be baring the burden of proof at all. not atheists, not christians, not buddhists, no one.
Why? Because of faith. Faith negates the burden of proof as it isn't our job as believers to prove anything to anyone. It is our job as believers to have faith in what we believe in.
No one should have to prove anything, and no one should have to challenge it at every fucking turn. Even if you are an atheist.
Who gave you the right to challenge what i believe in and why i believe in it?
Not saying anyone is here, but just hypothetically.
No matter what the media does to villianize religion or atheism or whatever, all of it is personal and everyone has come to their own conclusion on what they want to have faith in or believe in.
None of it is tangible and none of it can be proven or disproven.
So if we all understand this, why is it imperative that people are so vigilant on saying religion is or isn't _______.
[QUOTE=Paramud;33057719]Despite the fact that I, a Satanist[/QUOTE]
*snickers*
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;33058458]Why? Because of faith. Faith negates the burden of proof as it isn't our job as believers to prove anything to anyone. It is our job as believers to have faith in what we believe in.
No one should have to prove anything, and no one should have to challenge it at every fucking turn. Even if you are an atheist.[/QUOTE]
This is the crux of what you're saying, it seems. No, faith most certainly does not negate burden of proof. If a scientist happens to be a believer in Christ, and as such 'believes' that evolution never happened, the burden of proof is not suddenly gone. Sure, you can say that "faith negates proof", but all that means is that nobody takes you seriously anymore.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33058611]*snickers*[/QUOTE]
Something wrong with that?
[QUOTE=Paramud;33058782]Something wrong with that?[/QUOTE]
do you prefer your goat blood warm or cold?
[QUOTE=thisispain;33058818]do you prefer your goat blood warm or cold?[/QUOTE]
Go you prefeer your [I]pig[/I] blood warm or cold?
Actually,here we have some foods that would make people puke just because they looked at the ingridients. [I]Especially weight wachers and health obsessed people.[/I]
I really dislike facepunch's attitude with this crap.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33058818]do you prefer your goat blood warm or cold?[/QUOTE]
I prefer Cherry Coke. I'm a LaVeyan. Not a Luciferian, and I'm not Alaster Crowley. If you'd like to know more, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism]here you go.[/url]
I kind of expected a shitstorm of arguments as soon as I saw the word "god" in the title.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33057739]No, its not being intolerant or ignorant. Many atheists are very well educated on world religions and most hold that people are entitled to their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
To the contrary you guys suck at don't let people be entitled to their beliefs
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33058776]This is the crux of what you're saying, it seems. No, faith most certainly does not negate burden of proof. If a scientist happens to be a believer in Christ, and as such 'believes' that evolution never happened, the burden of proof is not suddenly gone. Sure, you can say that "faith negates proof", but all that means is that nobody takes you seriously anymore.[/QUOTE]
This would indeed be the case if you were a scientist who was studying evolution, yes.
However there are scientists out there that study many thing other than those that prove or disprove there being a divine creator, that are religious. Theres nothing wrong with being a religious scientist that studies biology, for example.
The burden of proof is very touchy though. While many already have stated they don't agree due to various reasons, atheism is not exempt from the burden of proof. I know your going to say that atheism is simply a point where you decide to not believe in anything, but thats not what i am hearing in this thread, and threads like it on face punch.
On facepunch, i am hearing more or less people actively protesting the existence of such a being.
Would you not say that this is a "claim"? I would say it is very much a claim. So the burden of proof is now on those who have actively protested the very existence of such being.
That is why i think burden of proof is a touchy subject, because under the right circumstance, anybody can be subject to it, or exempt from it.
There is almost a double standard i am seeing here. Some people are saying that atheism is a route to take when you do not believe in anything, others are outwardly exclaiming they think the existence of a god is fake and bullshit, calling it a fairytale, or comparing it to big foot.
Aren't those people subject to burden of proof because of their exclamations? Does calling yourself 'atheist' exempt you from all burden of proof regarding your claims you make? even if atheism puts the burden of proof on religion its self?
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;33058458]If that means that no one fucking gets what i'm trying to say, then yes, thats how bad of a fail it was.
You said 'faith' in your second paragraph.
Do you have any idea what it means? If you did, you wouldn't have posted your first paragraph.
If you want to put it like that though, then nobody should be baring the burden of proof at all. not atheists, not christians, not buddhists, no one.
Why? Because of faith. Faith negates the burden of proof as it isn't our job as believers to prove anything to anyone. It is our job as believers to have faith in what we believe in.
No one should have to prove anything, and no one should have to challenge it at every fucking turn. Even if you are an atheist.
Who gave you the right to challenge what i believe in and why i believe in it?
Not saying anyone is here, but just hypothetically.
No matter what the media does to villianize religion or atheism or whatever, all of it is personal and everyone has come to their own conclusion on what they want to have faith in or believe in.
None of it is tangible and none of it can be proven or disproven.
So if we all understand this, why is it imperative that people are so vigilant on saying religion is or isn't _______.[/QUOTE]
Because they affect policy and make decisions based on irrational beliefs. If the fundamentalists kept their beliefs to themselves, then I wouldn't waste any time trying to get them to stop, but when they try to pass laws suppressing the rights of people just because their religion tells them to, a line has to be drawn.
I agree that there are some atheists who argue just for the sake of arguing, but the majority of us believe that the world would be a better place with more rational thinking. If they can't come up with the evidence to support their views, they should not use those views as a basis for treating others.
Also, you seem to believe that atheism is some sort of faith or belief system. It's not really. We don't believe in God for the same reasons you don't believe in Vishnu or Thor.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;33058947]This would indeed be the case if you were a scientist who was studying evolution, yes.
However there are scientists out there that study many thing other than those that prove or disprove there being a divine creator, that are religious. Theres nothing wrong with being a religious scientist that studies biology, for example.[/quote]
Fair enough.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;33058947]The burden of proof is very touchy though. While many already have stated they don't agree due to various reasons, atheism is not exempt from the burden of proof. I know your going to say that atheism is simply a point where you decide to not believe in anything, but thats not what i am hearing in this thread, and threads like it on face punch.
On facepunch, i am hearing more or less people actively protesting the existence of such a being.
Would you not say that this is a "claim"? I would say it is very much a claim. So the burden of proof is now on those who have actively protested the very existence of such being.
That is why i think burden of proof is a touchy subject, because under the right circumstance, anybody can be subject to it, or exempt from it.
There is almost a double standard i am seeing here. Some people are saying that atheism is a route to take when you do not believe in anything, others are outwardly exclaiming they think the existence of a god is fake and bullshit, calling it a fairytale, or comparing it to big foot.
Aren't those people subject to burden of proof because of their exclamations? Does calling yourself 'atheist' exempt you from all burden of proof regarding your claims you make? even if atheism puts the burden of proof on religion its self?[/QUOTE]
Please, you're being ridiculous. Atheism makes no proclamation of its own, even in the most organized groups, simply a denunciation of prior assertions by organized religions. If I were to say that unicorns exist, but only I can see them and they aren't tangible, that kind of claim requires proof to be taken seriously.
Does being Atheist absolve me of burden of proof? What kind of question is that? I'm not claiming that there is some kind of 'Atheist God' that rules over your god, simply that your claims of a God's existence require substantiation.
[QUOTE=Paramud;33058884]I prefer Cherry Coke. I'm a LaVeyan. Not a Luciferian, and I'm not Alaster Crowley. If you'd like to know more, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism]here you go.[/url][/QUOTE]
that's lame as fuck. if you don't drink goats blood or worship the living dead then you're just a group of dorks calling yourselves satanists.
way to ruin everything
[QUOTE=thisispain;33059149]that's lame as fuck. if you don't drink goats blood or worship the living dead then you're just a group of dorks calling yourselves satanists.
way to ruin everything[/QUOTE]
We are who we are, and we wouldn't have it any other way.
[QUOTE=Paramud;33059165]We are who we are, and we wouldn't have it any other way.[/QUOTE]
yeah i guess. sorry for stealing your life force.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;33058939]To the contrary you guys suck at don't let people be entitled to their beliefs[/QUOTE]I could point out that your poor grammar here actually reaffirms my point but I understood what you were saying.
Its not that we don't let them hold their beliefs. We simply question their beliefs.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;33058947]This would indeed be the case if you were a scientist who was studying evolution, yes.
However there are scientists out there that study many thing other than those that prove or disprove there being a divine creator, that are religious. Theres nothing wrong with being a religious scientist that studies biology, for example.
The burden of proof is very touchy though. While many already have stated they don't agree due to various reasons, atheism is not exempt from the burden of proof. I know your going to say that atheism is simply a point where you decide to not believe in anything, but thats not what i am hearing in this thread, and threads like it on face punch.
On facepunch, i am hearing more or less people actively protesting the existence of such a being.
Would you not say that this is a "claim"? I would say it is very much a claim. So the burden of proof is now on those who have actively protested the very existence of such being.
That is why i think burden of proof is a touchy subject, because under the right circumstance, anybody can be subject to it, or exempt from it.
There is almost a double standard i am seeing here. Some people are saying that atheism is a route to take when you do not believe in anything, others are outwardly exclaiming they think the existence of a god is fake and bullshit, calling it a fairytale, or comparing it to big foot.
Aren't those people subject to burden of proof because of their exclamations? Does calling yourself 'atheist' exempt you from all burden of proof regarding your claims you make? even if atheism puts the burden of proof on religion its self?[/QUOTE]
I doubt there are very many gnostic atheists. If someone says "I know there is no god", then they would have to have proof to back up their statements. However, most of us say "The evidence that I see provides no reason for me to believe in a god." There is no burden of proof there because it's a conclusion based on evidence, or the lack of it. It's ridiculous to tell atheists to prove there is no god, in the same way it is ridiculous to ask you to prove that there is no giant invisible dragon in my room. I hate the fairytale comparisons because I don't think they are very respectful, but if a theist makes decisions based on these stories, they need evidence to back it up.
So yes, people are entitled to their beliefs, but they are the ones who have to prove what they say if they try to pass laws or teach their children based on their beliefs.
actually the non-religious make up 11.77% to be precise, wish it was 100% though.
[QUOTE=Paramud;33058884]I'm a LaVeyan.[/QUOTE]
All hail Ayn Rand
Ascend from the depths below, Ron Paul, and crush those who are not followers of thee!
Bind the virgin and bring her to the sacrificial voting booth
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33059096]
Please, you're being ridiculous. Atheism makes no proclamation of its own, even in the most organized groups, simply a denunciation of prior assertions by organized religions. If I were to say that unicorns exist, but only I can see them and they aren't tangible, that kind of claim requires proof to be taken seriously.
Does being Atheist absolve me of burden of proof? What kind of question is that? I'm not claiming that there is some kind of 'Atheist God' that rules over your god, simply that your claims of a God's existence require substantiation.[/QUOTE]
You must have misread what i was saying. I'm not implying that atheism is a religion or following of it's own in any manner. I am aware as i have said many times that atheism is just what you are when you weigh your options and decide not to believe in any religion.
What i was getting at above was simply, people not taking responsibilities for their claims after they demand religious people to take responsibility for their claims, such as the existence of god.
To put it in its most simple manner, people aren't outright come out and saying there is no god, deal with it, but the nature of their argument implies that is their stance on the subject.
So to put it simply, they say there is no god. I say there is.
We have both made claims, yet i am the only one with the burden of proof?
If claims were made on both parts, shouldn't the other individual share the burden of proof with me, in the fact that he has to support his claim that "there is no god" with hard evidence? That was all i was saying.
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;33059049]Because they affect policy and make decisions based on irrational beliefs. If the fundamentalists kept their beliefs to themselves, then I wouldn't waste any time trying to get them to stop, but when they try to pass laws suppressing the rights of people just because their religion tells them to, a line has to be drawn.
I agree that there are some atheists who argue just for the sake of arguing, but the majority of us believe that the world would be a better place with more rational thinking. If they can't come up with the evidence to support their views, they should not use those views as a basis for treating others.
Also, you seem to believe that atheism is some sort of faith or belief system. It's not really. We don't believe in God for the same reasons you don't believe in Vishnu or Thor.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the fact that it is wrong for religion to dictate laws of society. I look back at the dark ages when the church controlled the state with disgust.
I think religion should play no role in society, and I believe religion should be utterly personal. Like i have said many times. It is a personal choice to believe, so it should stay a personal affair and not be forced upon anyone.
On another note. I'm not for or against any of this. I enjoy this debate, even if it isn't in mass debate section. Once all of the people who troll and the people who take personal offense to others opinions are out of the way, a few good debates on the subject have come out of the wood work.
I enjoy being able to engage in a more intellectual debate rather than listening to the common forum memes being spewed as if they have relevance to the debate.
[QUOTE=AntiNazi;33058865]Go you prefeer your [I]pig[/I] blood warm or cold?
[/QUOTE]
i am a jew, or as it is known in your country the evil ones that steal your money, so i can't drink any pig blood. a shame i know
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33059414]All hail Ayn Rand
Ascend from the depths below, Ron Paul, and crush those who are not followers of thee!
Bind the virgin and bring her to the sacrificial voting booth[/QUOTE]
now now zeke don't abuse your sexual magic powers
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;33059446]You must have misread what i was saying. I'm not implying that atheism is a religion or following of it's own in any manner. I am aware as i have said many times that atheism is just what you are when you weigh your options and decide not to believe in any religion.
What i was getting at above was simply, people not taking responsibilities for their claims after they demand religious people to take responsibility for their claims, such as the existence of god.
To put it in its most simple manner, people aren't outright come out and saying there is no god, deal with it, but the nature of their argument implies that is their stance on the subject.
So to put it simply, they say there is no god. I say there is.
We have both made claims, yet i am the only one with the burden of proof?
If claims were made on both parts, shouldn't the other individual share the burden of proof with me, in the fact that he has to support his claim that "there is no god" with hard evidence? That was all i was saying.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, atheists don't claim that there can't possibly be a god. They believe that the evidence for god is nonexistent and therefore choose not to believe in it. The burden of proof that is on the atheist for this stance boils down to whether or not there is evidence for god. The proof needed from the atheist is done at this point, and the theist needs to show evidence for god in order to disprove the atheist. It's the same the other way around. If the theist claims that he has evidence for god, then it is the job of the atheist to disprove it. If you claim that you have no evidence for god, the burden of proof on the atheist ends there.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;33057633]The burden of proof works both ways[/QUOTE]
lol what the fuck
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;33058458]
Why? Because of faith. Faith negates the burden of proof as it isn't our job as believers to prove anything to anyone. It is our job as believers to have faith in what we believe in.[/QUOTE]
You can have faith that Elvis is still alive.
You can have faith that the cookie monster exists.
You can have faith that the earth is being held up by Atlas on his shoulders.
You can have faith in anything. Having faith requires you to believe in something without evidence (so yes, I'm saying the entire concept of faith is irrational).
Without evidence, your claim doesn't carry any weight in an argument. Having faith does not negate the burden of proof.
[quote]
The burden of proof is very touchy though. While many already have stated they don't agree due to various reasons, atheism is not exempt from the burden of proof. I know your going to say that atheism is simply a point where you decide to not believe in anything, but thats not what i am hearing in this thread, and threads like it on face punch.[/quote]
No. There's nothing touchy about the burden of proof. It's a simple concept. You make a claim, you present evidence for your claim. Without evidence, your claim doesn't mean anything.
You seem to have this strange interpretation of atheism put in your head where you think they are like some sort of cult who believes that god does not exist. Again, atheism is no more a religion than "off" is a TV channel, they aren't claiming to know for 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, they just have their "tv set" turned to "off". That's just a simple way of putting it. Any atheist who claims to believe with 100% certainly that there is no god is a fool, because they don't have the evidence to be making that claim. I have never met an atheist in my life who has made this type of claim. When you don't know if something is true, the answer is "I don't know", not "Goddidit", you would have to present evidence that "Goddidit" in order for your claim to be valid.
Lets use the origin of the universe for example: Where did the particles that created the big bang come from?
Atheist answer: I don't know. (not a claim and there is no burden of proof here)
Religious answer: Goddidit. (claiming to know for certain that God did it, proof is required for this claim to be valid)
[QUOTE=thisispain;33058818]do you prefer your goat blood warm or cold?[/QUOTE]
I'm christian and even I know that not all satanists are like that.
For that matter there a lot of sects that are [I]very[/I] different than that.
A lot of people on FP act like believing in anything is like leprosy.
I believe in a god. If you have a problem with that you can fuck right off.
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;33062943]A lot of people on FP act like believing in anything is like leprosy.[/QUOTE]
You can believe whatever you want to believe. That doesn't make it true. I don't know about anyone else here, but all I've done is point out logical errors people are making (like the "X is true until you can disprove it" fallacy) and also asked for some evidence as to why their beliefs are true.
I don't think "believing in anything is like leprosy", all I'm saying is that if you don't have evidence for your claims then don't expect to be taken seriously in a rational discussion.
[QUOTE=Noble;33063655]You can believe whatever you want to believe. That doesn't make it true. I don't know about anyone else here, but all I've done is point out logical errors people are making (like the "X is true until you can disprove it" fallacy) and also asked for some evidence as to why their beliefs are true.
I don't think "believing in anything is like leprosy", all I'm saying is that if you don't have evidence for your claims then don't expect to be taken seriously in a rational discussion.[/QUOTE]
Precisely. You want to have a rational discussion about science or the Earth or the universe? Then faith has no part in that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
