Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[cybrsage]

That's not true in the way that you think it is. You're right that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. What you're wrong about is what, exactly, is a claim.

If someone tells me that the Moon is made of cheese, then they have made a claim and the burden of proof is upon them.

However, if I respond to that person and tell them that they're quite likely incorrect, I have NOT made a claim and therefore I have no burden of proof.

To put this into religious perspective, the claim requiring proof is "there is a god or gods". Those that make that claim have the burden to offer proof. However, the fact that atheists do not accept that there is a god (or gods) is NOT a position which makes any claim, and therefore there is no burden of proof.

When you (generic you, not personal you) claim "there are no gods", you are making a claim. You need to support said claim, not require people to disagree with your claim to prove you wrong.

It really is as simple as that.

 

[cybrsage]

It could have happened that way. But no amount of evidence in the world can infer that it had to have happened that way.

WRT the Big Bang, as it happens, we do have evidence that shows that it could have plausibly happened the way physicists believe.

Oh. And straw man. I never said no evidence was needed. Ever.

This claim was made:

the thing is, man created God.

There is no evidence that this is true. A claim made without any evidence (which is called proof in laymen's terms) is a faith based belief.

If you are saying he needs no evidence to make his claim AND that it also is not a faith based claim, then you are opening the door to all such claims. It is an all or none affair. Either all claims need supporting evidence in order to not be faith based beliefs or none of them do.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

He showed no proof.

That is also a faith-based belief.

Quote his proof...evidence...etc.

That wouldn't change anything.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You guys really do not listen, do you.

When it is 4-8 guys all commenting on one guy, he is either baiting or delusional.

One thing is for sure, he has WAY too much time on his hands which means he is either a college student, a government employee (tech support at DMV or Unemployment?) or a security guard with wi-fi access.

Cybr, don't even bother quoting me on this. I read about the first 3 words of anything you post, especially when you are quoting something, and determine which direction it is going.

"when you claim" or "The claim was made" are simple indicators that you are re-iterating the same tired and unsubstantiated argument and it is just not worth reading.

Take some time out and relax. You are over-posting and losing community respect. I am not faulting you for it, but just look around.

BTW, that little button with the "+" on it on the bottom of a post would allow multi-quoting. You may want to use that and reply to 3 posts rather than quoting each individually. This is not a post-count race.....

 

[Onceler]

So Frith was made by the bunnies?

 

[cybrsage]

You guys really do not listen, do you.

You are trying to redefine the issue into something it is not.

The claim was made that man invented God. This claim requires supporting evidence or else it is a faith based belief.

There is no supporting evidence (impossible to have any, since humans have a relatively short recorded history, which begins with humans already believing in gods), which means it is a faith based belief.

It really is that simple. No supporting evidence means the belief is based on faith.

 

[cybrsage]

That is also a faith-based belief.

It would be faith based it I could not support it with evidence. Look at his posts, he posted no supporting evidence.

That wouldn't change anything.

It would show you are lying.

 

[IronWing]

I have created many gods. I killed most of them, at least I think they're dead.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

When you (generic you, not personal you) claim "there are no gods", you are making a claim. You need to support said claim, not require people to disagree with your claim to prove you wrong.

It really is as simple as that.

You didn't understand anything I wrote, then. Atheists are not making a claim. We are merely rejecting your (religious your, not personal your) god-claim.

But, let's back up and approach this concept without any religious baggage. I'm sure, at its most simplistic level we have some common ground here (or we're done with this conversation). Answer this: do you agree that the rejection of a claim is not, in and of itself, making a claim?

Example:

Person A: The Moon is made of cheese.
Person B: I do not believe that is the case.

Did Person B make a claim?

 

[cybrsage]

You didn't understand anything I wrote, then. Atheists are not making a claim. We are merely rejecting your (religious your, not personal your) god-claim.

No, that is not what happened.

But, let's back up and approach this concept without any religious baggage. I'm sure, at its most simplistic level we have some common ground here (or we're done with this conversation). Answer this: do you agree that the rejection of a claim is not, in and of itself, making a claim?

Example:

Person A: The Moon is made of cheese.
Person B: I do not believe that is the case.

Did Person B make a claim?

You would be correct if that was the case. In this case, Person B's statement was before that of Person A.

Person B: I do not believe the Moon is made of cheese.
Persan A: I do not believe that is the case.

 

[cybrsage]

I have created many gods. I killed most of them, at least I think they're dead.

Did you do it to eat their god seeds?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It would be faith based it I could not support it with evidence.

How can you logically exclude the possibilty that you are being prevented from seeing it by a magical interferer?

He posted no supporting evidence.

Faith-based belief.

It would show you are lying.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, that is not what happened.



You would be correct if that was the case. In this case, Person B's statement was before that of Person A.

Person B: I do not believe the Moon is made of cheese.
Persan A: I do not believe that is the case.

You apparently fail to understand the distinction between these two propositions:

1.) I do not believe the moon is made of cheese.
2.) I believe the moon is not made of cheese.

Please, get some education.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

No, that is not what happened.



You would be correct if that was the case. In this case, Person B's statement was before that of Person A.

Person B: I do not believe the Moon is made of cheese.
Persan A: I do not believe that is the case.

Am I correct in my inference that you believe atheists rejected the idea of a god or gods before one was ever even suggested in the first place?

 

[cybrsage]

How can you logically exclude the possibilty that you are being prevented from seeing it by a magical interferer?


Faith-based belief.

Bawitdaba-da bang-da-bang-diggy-diggy-diggy
Said the boogie-said up jump the boogie
Bawitdaba-da bang-da-dang-diggy-diggy-diggy
Said the boogie-said up drop the boogie


Nonsense post met with a nonsense reply.

 

[cybrsage]

Agreed. God does not control everything, He gave us free will therefore He is not controling anyone.

the thing is, man created God.

After reading it over again, keeping in mind what JackSpades said, I will have to recant my position. Upon additional reading and adding things not written, it appears zinfamous was rebutting the notion of Gods existance inferred in Onceler's post.


In this situation, zinfamous would not have the burden of proof.

It is still a faith based belief (a belief without supporting evidence), but he does not have the burden of proof in this discussion.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

you apparently fail to understand the distinction between these two propositions:

1.) i do not believe the moon is made of cheese.
2.) i believe the moon is not made of cheese.

Please, get some education.

Exactly!

 

[sandorski]

The Forums Evolved Ignore for a reason people.

 

[cybrsage]

exactly!

Ah, I thought you were talking about the subject which we had been talking about, I did not notice you completely changed it.

We were talking about someone making a direct statement of belief. You changed it to show the difference between a statement of belief and a statement of not belief.

Yes, they are different. It is the basic difference between strong and weak atheism (wrt the belief and not belief in a god). This is not what was under discussion, hence my confusion.

But you are correct, a statement of not believing something is not having a belief.

This is irrelevant to the discussion about a statement of belief requiring support for said belief, though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nonsense post met with a nonsense reply.

My question is coherent and legitimate. It deserves an answer. You have dodged it because you do not like the fact that in order to answer it honestly you would make yourself a hypocrite.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

It is still a faith based belief (a belief without supporting evidence), but he does not have the burden of proof in this discussion.

Here you define faith as "a belief without supporting evidence" and I'm generally alright with that wording. However, in actual usage, you seem to be defining faith as "a statement lacking total mathematical proof".

zinfamous said "man created God" and then offered as supporting evidence that there was a time during the existence of humanity before religion. Is that a total, airtight proof with no other possibilities? No. But, it is supporting evidence. Therefore, his statement was not faith by your own definition of the word!

 

[cybrsage]

My question is coherent and legitimate. It deserves and answer. You have dodged it because you do not like the fact that in order to answer it honestly you would make yourself a hypocrite.

No, you are being dishonest and you know it.

A statement of belief requires supporting evidence or else it is a faith based belief. This is a known thing, and is part of the very definition of the word faith.

You also claim he showed support, but refuse to show it, then say this support is magically hidden from me but you can see it. You are imaking a Kid Rock statement.

 

[cybrsage]

Here you define faith as "a belief without supporting evidence" and I'm generally alright with that wording. However, in actual usage, you seem to be defining faith as "a statement lacking total mathematical proof".

It is not possible to have complete proof of anything.

zinfamous said "man created God" and then offered as supporting evidence that there was a time during the existence of humanity before religion. Is that a total, airtight proof with no other possibilities? No. But, it is supporting evidence. Therefore, his statement was not faith by your own definition of the word!

He made that claim, but did not support it. He failed to show his claim about there being a time before man believed in a god is actually true. That is the issue. It cannot be called supporting evidence if he makes it up (or if someone made it up and he simply restated it).

 

[JackSpadesSI]

It is not possible to have complete proof of anything.

I know, and that was my point.

He made that claim, but did not support it. He failed to show his claim about there being a time before man believed in a god is actually true. That is the issue. It cannot be called supporting evidence if he makes it up (or if someone made it up and he simply restated it).

Just because you don't personally like the evidence doesn't mean it wasn't evidence. (I'm not saying that everything offered as evidence counts, but not liking it isn't a reason to discount it.)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, you are being dishonest and you know it.

Which part is dishonest? Is it not logically possible for you to be magically deceived by a supernatural being?

A statement of belief requires supporting evidence or else it is a faith based belief. This is a known thing, and is part of the very definition of the word faith.

It is not true that you believe without any evidence whatsoever that you are not being supernaturally tricked into believing a falsehood?

You also claim he showed support

Please cite this claim that you have attributed to me, or admit it is in fact you (as usual) that is dishonest.

...but refuse to show it

Faith-based belief.

...then say this support is magically hidden from me but you can see it.

Please quote me where I have made this claim.

You are imaking a Kid Rock statement.

You have the reading comprehension of a 3 year old.