My favorite agnostic is teetering toward Truth

Howie said:
I say again: Your stance, "I do not believe in any gods because I have yet to see anyone prove their god is real empirically," is the "prove me wrong," stance you so loudly criticize others for taking. Obviously, you've not read Russell's teapot, have you?
Click to expand...
I am not saying prove me wrong. I am saying you need to prove yourself right.

To disprove "I do not believe in gods" you would have to prove that I actually do believe in gods. That is the falsification of that belief. You do not disprove "I do not believe in gods" wrong by proving a god.

So I have made no claim of belief that I am saying 'prove me wrong'. I am saying I have no belief to prove wrong - I do not believe in gods - there is nothing to disprove.

I think your idea that I am saying 'prove me wrong' is in error.
Howie said:
Let me help you: you can't meet your own demand for empirical evidence for your own "lack-of-belief" position.
Click to expand...
You cannot empirically support a subjective concept like a lack of belief. You are trying to make my subjective claim (lack of belief) into a claim we can falsify like your objective claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

I have made no statement that needs to be defended or disproven - I simply lack a belief in any gods.

The burden to prove God is entirely on you. There is no similar atheist claim that you can somehow demand proof for in retaliation.

Its a logic error.
Howie said:
In fact, for some absurd reason, you think your "lack of" description of your position excludes it from any evidence requirements to support it.
Click to expand...
See above. If you can differentiate between subjective concepts like belief and objective facts like Jesus rose it will become clearer.
Howie said:
Irrational much?
Click to expand...
Yes. Just not in this thread.
 
Furion said:
But of course, I wouldn't expect you to admit you are a believer in strong atheism.

I mean, what atheist does? LOL

I'm here if you ever to decide to express your feelings without equivocation.
Click to expand...
I think this is a great point.

Religion is about faith, and being absolutely certain you are right. We see that every day at CARM, and as Furion shows here, that absolute certainty is considered to be a good thing.

Atheists are quite different. For the most part, we recognise that we could be wrong. We do not think there is a god, but we accept the possibility. To us, it is nature to have some doubts, and to be utterly sure of yourself just looks like arrogance and, well, delusion.
 
Lighthearted Atheist said:
I am not saying prove me wrong. I am saying you need to prove yourself right.

To disprove "I do not believe in gods" you would have to prove that I actually do believe in gods. That is the falsification of that belief. You do not disprove "I do not believe in gods" wrong by proving a god.

So I have made no claim of belief that I am saying 'prove me wrong'. I am saying I have no belief to prove wrong - I do not believe in gods - there is nothing to disprove.

I think your idea that I am saying 'prove me wrong' is in error.

You cannot empirically support a subjective concept like a lack of belief. You are trying to make my subjective claim (lack of belief) into a claim we can falsify like your objective claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

I have made no statement that needs to be defended or disproven - I simply lack a belief in any gods.

The burden to prove God is entirely on you. There is no similar atheist claim that you can somehow demand proof for in retaliation.

Its a logic error.

See above. If you can differentiate between subjective concepts like belief and objective facts like Jesus rose it will become clearer.

Yes. Just not in this thread.
Click to expand...
I say again: Your stance, "I do not believe in any gods because I have yet to see anyone prove their god is real empirically," is the "prove me wrong," stance you so loudly criticize others for taking. Obviously, you've not read Russell's teapot, have you?

Let me help you: you can't meet your own demand for empirical evidence for your own "lack-of-belief" position.

In fact, for some absurd reason, you think your "lack of" description of your position excludes it from any evidence requirements to support it.
 
Howie said:
I say again: Your stance, "I do not believe in any gods because I have yet to see anyone prove their god is real empirically," is the "prove me wrong," stance you so loudly criticize others for taking. Obviously, you've not read Russell's teapot, have you?

Let me help you: you can't meet your own demand for empirical evidence for your own "lack-of-belief" position.

In fact, for some absurd reason, you think your "lack of" description of your position excludes it from any evidence requirements to support it.
Click to expand...
LA: "To disprove "I do not believe in gods" you would have to prove that I actually do believe in gods. "

If you don't understand this very clearly stated fact then you can't think clearly enough to to trust and defend any of your beliefs straight up. You know how weak and beyond repair your position is.
 
5wize said:
LA: "To disprove "I do not believe in gods" you would have to prove that I actually do believe in gods. "

If you don't understand this very clearly stated fact then you can't think clearly enough to to trust and defend any of your beliefs straight up. You know how weak and beyond repair your position is.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
5wize said:
LA: "To disprove "I do not believe in gods" you would have to prove that I actually do believe in gods. "

If you don't understand this very clearly stated fact then you can't think clearly enough to to trust and defend any of your beliefs straight up. You know how weak and beyond repair your position is.
Click to expand...
Your error is you seem to think I am saying, "there is a teacup - prove me wrong."

When I am saying, "there might be a teacup - I do not believe it yet"

My stance is the null hypothesis - the stance that we do not know until we prove it. It is the core of science. It is common sense and the very basis of logic.

'Prove me wrong' is a logic error. 'Prove your claim' is science 101.
 
Howie said:
Why?
Click to expand...
People who claim their belief is true unless someone else proves them wrong are showing that they cannot prove themselves right. So, in desperation, they try to put the burden on the person who has claimed nothing.

"Prove you claims of gods are true" is logic.

"Zeus is real unless you prove otherwise" is a logic error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top