Cookie182
Individui Superiore
AyeIs he the chosen one who offers truth and salvation?@?@@!!
AyeIs he the chosen one who offers truth and salvation?@?@@!!
That's the beginning of the answer.if god dosent exist then how cum were all here?
fuckin no brainer
A few accounts have been deleted over the past week or so - so some posts that were previously part of the thread have disappeared.Didnt this thread have 1000 pages?? What had happened?
To be quite honest, I find Hitchens and pretty much all of the "new atheists" (dawkins, harris etc) to be quite lacking in their arguments. These people seem more angry with religion than angry with actual philosophical reasons for the belief in God.Theists, look up Christopher Hitchens and get over it already.
I love it, since it means that both parties have an equal share in the burden of proof.Edit: I am really astounded that the split of atheists/theists is trending towards a 50/50 split. I thought the atheists would have had it by a mile.
How so?I love it, since it means that both parties have an equal share in the burden of proof.
Generally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming something contrary to fact or a commonly assumed belief. In the case of our atheism vs theism poll, neither party can claim that their view is the default position since opinions on the issue are evenly split.How so?
I don't think the burden of proof can be determined by popular opinion. The theistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held of the atheistic party, and as such requires support.Generally speaking, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming something contrary to fact or a commonly assumed belief. In the case of our atheism vs theism poll, neither party can claim that their view is the default position since opinions on the issue are evenly split.
So with this, both the theist and the atheist are asserting a positive claim to knowledge by saying that "God does exist" or "God does not exist". Since neither of these claims are a default assumption (since votes are split 50/50) both shoulder the burden of proof equally in showing why their view is correct.
A good situation to be in when promoting lively discussion
Just as the atheistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held by the theistic party - namely that God does not exist. I regard both as positive claims to knowledge even if one view deals with the non-existence of something vs the actual existence of something.I don't think the burden of proof can be determined by popular opinion. The theistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held of the atheistic party, and as such requires support.
Personally, as an atheist, I do not make the claim that god cannot exist. I merely say that the theistic claim of god's existence is false. I am not making a positive claim of knowledge. The onus lies on the theistic party to support their claim.Just as the atheistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held by the theistic party - namely that God does not exist. I regard both as positive claims to knowledge even if one view deals with the non-existence of something vs the actual existence of something.
I'm interested as to how you would go about positively proving the non-existence of something?Just as the atheistic party is claiming a belief additional to those held by the theistic party - namely that God does not exist. I regard both as positive claims to knowledge even if one view deals with the non-existence of something vs the actual existence of something.
You're a dushe.god does exist. i am he, he i am. i am alpha, and omega. I was, i am, and i will be. Zion shall be ur final sanctuary - the new jerusalem. Then shall i punish those who are gay
Aye, but note that even this is a claim to knowledge. I don't see how simply disagreeing with someone when they are arguing in the affirmative relieves you of the burden of proof.Personally, as an atheist, I do not make the claim that god cannot exist. I merely say that the theistic claim of god's existence is false. I am not making a positive claim of knowledge. The onus lies on the theistic party to support their claim.
That's a fair comment.To be quite honest, I find Hitchens and pretty much all of the "new atheists" (dawkins, harris etc) to be quite lacking in their arguments. These people seem more angry with religion than angry with actual philosophical reasons for the belief in God.
The default position is indeed with the side who has a lack of belief, and their support for that position is the absence of evidence to the contrary. The theistic side must support their positive claim by providing justification for their belief.Aye, but note that even this is a claim to knowledge. I don't see how simply disagreeing with someone when they are arguing in the affirmative relieves you of the burden of proof.
To illustrate, imagine that we are instead discussing existence of the world. Who should shoulder the burden of proof in this case? Should our default position be in the negative? Am I able to fairly retort, that as an anti-world believer, I regard the world believers claim as false and so it's up to them to prove that the world exists?