To: Atheists/Agnostics etc.

[soulcougher73]

What evidence do you have someone made the shovel?

That is his point. He made the claim but lacks evidence.

 

[Tweak155]

Because it strongly implies that you need more. A point of entry requires something to enter.

I guess. To me it is equivalent. I would come into an argument with my strongest point, aka my basis. Dunno, to each their own. That is not what I was trying to imply.

 

[Tweak155]

That is his point. He made the claim but lacks evidence.

Agree.

 

[sandorski]

How am I ignoring it? I'm acknowledging it and deciding it can't be proven nor disproven.

So, if your arrogance leads you to believe that me not being able to prove something therefor means it does not exist, then it doesn't exist according to you. But that's your stance, you can't force it onto me.

How is it "arrogance" on my part to refuse to believe your assertion, when you can't provide even one bit of evidence to back up your assertion?

Are you arrogant for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[Tweak155]

How is it "arrogance" on my part to refuse to believe your assertion, when you can't provide even one bit of evidence to back up your assertion?

Are you arrogant for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Where have I asserted anything, other than a lack of evidence?

 

[soulcougher73]

Where have I asserted anything, other than a lack of evidence?

I think what he is getting as is why would anyone believe anything without hard evidence? Its the same reason nobody believes in the FSM or unicorns that fart rainbows, or the tooth fairy.

I mean you can tell your kid all you want the tooth fairy will put a quarter under your pillow, but nobody really believes that. Why? No evidence of such a thing happening. Well other than the evidence you are lying to your kid and you yourself putting the quarter under his pillow

 

[sandorski]

Where have I asserted anything, other than a lack of evidence?

Re-read your posts and find that I may have assumed too much, however I remain suspicious. Regardless, how does my position make me the "arrogant" one?

 

[Tweak155]

I think what he is getting as is why would anyone believe anything without hard evidence? Its the same reason nobody believes in the FSM or unicorns that fart rainbows, or the tooth fairy.

I mean you can tell your kid all you want the tooth fairy will put a quarter under your pillow, but nobody really believes that. Why? No evidence of such a thing happening. Well other than the evidence you are lying to your kid and you yourself putting the quarter under his pillow

Because he or she sees evidence where you do not.

 

[Dumac]

If I was completely sold on there being no God or afterlife, I sincerly believe I would have put a gun to my head long ago.

I view it the opposite way. It is because I believe that there is nothing after this life that I find my life so valuable. I find existance valuable. Death is the greatest fear I have. It is frightening to know that one day you will simply cease to exist.

On the other hand, believing in an afterlife would be great. Who would care if I died, then? I get to life for eternity anyway. Usher in the next life!

 

[soulcougher73]

Because he or she sees evidence where you do not.

But shouldnt they be able to show me this evidence they see? Or are they making stuff up as well to see?

 

[Tweak155]

Re-read your posts and find that I may have assumed too much, however I remain suspicious. Regardless, how does my position make me the "arrogant" one?

Because if the stance you're taking is that if I cannot prove something to be true if I make a claim, therefor it is false, it is an arrogant stance. As in you'll take that stance whether it is true or not.

That is how you're coming across.

 

[Dumac]

Because he or she sees evidence where you do not.

This is a whole issue upon itself. I mean, how can you convince someone more than their own pereception?

 

[sandorski]

Because if the stance you're taking is that if I cannot prove something to be true if I make a claim, therefor it is false, it is an arrogant stance. As in you'll take that stance whether it is true or not.

That is how you're coming across.

I don't say that it's False because of the lack of evidence. I merely can't accept it as True, due to the lack of evidence.

 

[Tweak155]

But shouldnt they be able to show me this evidence they see? Or are they making stuff up as well to see?

I will allude to a previous post of mine where your level of required evidence likely surpasses theirs.

 

[Tweak155]

I don't say that it's False because of the lack of evidence. I merely can't accept it as True, due to the lack of evidence.

But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.

What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.

 

[soulcougher73]

I will allude to a previous post of mine where your level of required evidence likely surpasses theirs.

If by surpasses theirs you mean they dont require any, than maybe you have a point LOL. Which all comes back to them being retarded with defective brains

 

[Tweak155]

If by surpasses theirs you mean they dont require any, than maybe you have a point LOL. Which all comes back to them being retarded with defective brains

I'd argue this is just as a "retarded" point of reasoning as any theist.

 

[soulcougher73]

But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.

What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.

Those same properties make it also impossible for them to prove. In that case these people are bat shit crazy believing in things that many would kill over and have, without a lick of proof.

 

[Tweak155]

Those same properties make it also impossible for them to prove. In that case these people are bat shit crazy believing in things that many would kill over and have, without a lick of proof.

Aha! This is my same conclusion. That he is neither provable nor disprovable.

 

[soulcougher73]

I mean even the FSM has a Gospel book:
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-...ghetti+monster

But you dont see people who actually believe in the FSM. Its just a joke. Basically it comes down to no proof = it does not exist. And you should be beat up for making stuff up

 

[Atomic Playboy]

But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.

What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.

The flying spaghetti monster is an analog for God. It is no more possible to prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster than it is to prove or disprove the existence of God. They are both metaphysical beings which we are physically incapable of observing or detecting with any test. So the very notion of "disproving the flying spaghetti monster" is inherently as impossible as disproving God, and therefore not worthy of any serious consideration. I suppose that you are correct in the assertion that disproving the existence of one metaphysical being does not disprove the existence of all metaphysical beings, but since we can't do the former, the latter is irrelevant.

 

[sandorski]

But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.

What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.

Certainly, but why should I Believe?

 

[Paul98]

But this in and of itself does not prove something false. You can make any number of unprovable claims which would be equally as pointless to pursue, such as a flying spaghetti monster. However if I could somehow disprove the flying spaghetti monster, this would not disprove God.

What makes God "impossible" to disprove are the properties assigned to him.

How would you define this "God"?

 

[Tweak155]

Certainly, but why should I Believe?

How would you define this "God"?

Not really my argument to give. But by definition (from my understanding) he can do anything he wants. So if he wants to impossible to disprove, then there you go.

 

[Tweak155]

The flying spaghetti monster is an analog for God. It is no more possible to prove or disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster than it is to prove or disprove the existence of God. They are both metaphysical beings which we are physically incapable of observing or detecting with any test. So the very notion of "disproving the flying spaghetti monster" is inherently as impossible as disproving God, and therefore not worthy of any serious consideration. I suppose that you are correct in the assertion that disproving the existence of one metaphysical being does not disprove the existence of all metaphysical beings, but since we can't do the former, the latter is irrelevant.

Just as I wouldn't put any effort into proving or disproving the FSM, either.