An atheist's call to arms

[Freedom 4 all]

All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

 

[TER]

All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

Very well said.

 

[M House]

Um yeah... burden of proof? I just said you can believe whatever. Guess Mitt will just start calling you unscientific and you'll get in a hissy fit on that. Personally I have no idea why either side treats it like some super absolute religion. Anyway science is about trying to prove disprove hypothesis. So I just made one. I can go back and check out different stuff relating to it anytime. I think there's alittle too much dead seriousness involved when discussing our dead ancestors and/or this God thing. However, I'll let people like Mitt and Dawkins here do the talking for atheism. I could kinda care less. Afterall, it's not a religion to me.

 

[Pennsylvania]

All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

What do you mean shift it? Shift it from what?

 

[M House]

I have no idea Penn you're not even an atheist are you? I guess that's a message to MRS.

 

[M House]

Wait sec my bad, who was that message too?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The burden of proof lies on those who wish to cause others to conform. This applies to both atheists and theists. 'Nuff said.

 

[AutoDas]

All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

And if I said that we were revolving around in a teacup then the burden of proof should be mine to bear, not the anti-teacup believers.

 

[Xenophage]

All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

I've never tried to disprove a believer. I've yet to have God proven to me.

If I said that the world is an illusion and in reality we're all giant worm-like creatures plugged into virtual reality devices, you couldn't really disprove me on that Would you even try? No, that's stupid. You'd laugh at me, and say "Oh yeah? Prove it."

 

[TER]

Anyway science is about trying to prove disprove hypothesis.

Well, in so much that it needs to keep breaking the bonds that restrain it. Science has proved one thing consistently- that it's function is always growing and expanding. What were once considered established truths and at the forefronts of knowledge, almost invariably end up being replaced by another more deeper understanding.

The pattern to date has consistently shown that there exist limits only in our understanding of things. In relatively minuscule amounts of time (as compared to the age of the universe) complete paradigms change in our view of the cosmos. Due to the spread of ideas and the genius of certain great people, what were once considered impossible or mocked at and labeled 'foolish', in the end, reveal a deeper and more profound truth.

And it is this love for truth that drives science. It is a search for more light in the darkness. This is the quest of science.

This is also the quest for the human soul. To find the truth. Why? Because there is beauty in truth. In truth, all questions are answered. All meanings find purpose. And isn't that what this is really all about? To find purpose??

We cannot rely on 'known science' to be a limitation to our quest for purpose. Our purpose is not to disprove hypotheses, it is to find beauty and life.

 

[M House]

Well I always joked even from taking neurobiology, I gotz no idea how you are self-aware and remotely conscious. I'll have to take some guesses at that later.

 

[Xenophage]

Well I always joked even from taking neurobiology, I gotz no idea how you are self-aware and remotely conscious. I'll have to take some guesses at that later.

Still a mystery, but there are some good ideas. My favorite hypothesis comes from Roger Penrose, who speculates that consciousness operates at some quantum level and incorporates the breakdown of probability waves to account for our freewill. There's no evidence to support this theory, but we certainly have to break away from Newtonian determinism to account for a real physical explanation of the way that choice works in our brains, and quantum physics (in all its absurdity) might offer one.

If one compact little part of the Universe (our brains) can become self-aware, how about bigger parts of the Universe? How does it happen? Its cool stuff!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Still a mystery, but there are some good ideas. My favorite hypothesis comes from Roger Penrose, who speculates that consciousness operates at some quantum level and incorporates the breakdown of probability waves to account for our freewill. There's no evidence to support this theory, but we certainly have to break away from Newtonian determinism to account for a real physical explanation of the way that choice works in our brains, and quantum physics (in all its absurdity) might offer one.

If one compact little part of the Universe (our brains) can become self-aware, how about bigger parts of the Universe? How does it happen? Its cool stuff!

Perhaps someone could borrow from super string theory or the theoretical "Theory Of Everything" to help explain this. That would be neato!

 

[Freedom 4 all]

And if I said that we were revolving around in a teacup then the burden of proof should be mine to bear, not the anti-teacup believers.

Of course it would be, I have no problem with Russel's Teacup. My point is that you can not PROVE there is no God any more than I can prove there is one.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Of course it would be, I have no problem with Russel's Teacup. My point is that you can not PROVE there is no God any more than I can prove there is one.

Stop buying into the idea of absolute certainty. Its meaningless. Its useless. It will get you nowhere. You cant be absolutely certain about anything.


For example:

Goerge Bush was a space alien from the moon of Xenonbulon 7. PROVE ME WRONG! Until you do, I am just as justified believing it as you are not believing it.

Do you not see how FUCKING STUPID this line of reasoning is?

 

[TER]

Stop buying into the idea of absolute certainty. Its meaningless. Its useless. It will get you nowhere. You cant be absolutely certain about anything.

Than how are you certain there is no God?

 

[TER]

partially certain?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Than how are you certain there is no God?

I feel just as justified in saying there is no God as I feel justified saying there is no Godzilla.

Its not about absolute certainty. Its about evidence to what is likely true and likely untrue. If you claim Godzilla exists, I will not feel justified in believing you until you present me with evidence that your claim is true. If you claim God exists, I will not feel justified in believing you until you present me with evidence that your claim is true.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Im curious. Do you apply this premise to all questions in life? Any claim anyone makes, do you feel its justified to accept it until it is disproven? How then do you go about building a rational world view? Or is it just the question of gods that you apply this to? If so, why the double standard? Are you simply constructing a double standard to accommodate beliefs you simply want to believe?

And why does this line of reasoning not apply to other religions? Have you proven that Thor does not exist? If not, how can you be justified in your belief that he does not exist?

 

[TER]

I feel just as justified in saying there is no God as I feel justified saying there is no Godzilla.

So truth only exists when you feel justified? Wow. That's an incredible gift you have!

Its not about absolute certainty. Its about evidence to what is likely true and likely untrue. If you claim Godzilla exists, I will not feel justified in believing you until you present me with evidence that your claim is true. If you claim God exists, I will not feel justified in believing you until you present me with evidence that your claim is true.

First of all, it is about 'absolute certainty' when you make the statement that 'there is no God'. It's not saying there probably is not God, but rather making the claim that there is no God and the believer is wrong. And based on what? About your experiences and the knowledge you gained in this life? Are you the gold standard in what is true?

Isn't the pride smacking you right in the face?