• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...


Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings Awards About

  • Don't you fuggen know it. We wouldn't need to have any of these stupid and unprovable arguments that always arise between Atheists and Theists.

    Mind you, I must say I enjoy bashing away at ignorant or stupid theists every once in a while.
    You still fail to understand the burden of proof. The onus is on those who want to prove god's existence; no-one needs to disprove something that has never been proven.

    Also, read the article I linked you to. You have several misunderstandings about what atheism and agnosticism are. By calling myself an agnostic atheist I'm saying that I don't believe in the supernatural (atheism), but that I don't claim to know it doesn't exist (agnosticism).
    No, atheism does not need to prove that god doesn't exist, because the burden of proof does not lie with atheists. The fact that opposite beliefs exist does not mean that each holds equal weight. You don't have to prove to me that magical invisible unicorns don't live in my back yard; the burden of proof is on me to give evidence that they do exist.

    Of course atheists can be agnostics. I'm an agnostic atheist. Atheism and agnosticism are not different points on the same scale, they're different scales entirely: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
    Atheism isn't striving to prove anything. Atheism - lack of belief - is the default position; the burden of proof rests on anyone claiming that the supernatural exists to provide empirical evidence. Until such time, the scientific method defaults to lack of belief (atheism). Just like it defaults to lack of belief about my magical unicorn.

    Lack of proof does not make both sides of a claim equally plausible; it all depends where the burden of proof lies. Atheism doesn't need to prove anything, it needs to be disproven.

    And I didn't say that atheism and agnosticism are the same thing, I said that the vast majority of atheists are agnostics. Agnosticism is the epistemological stance that it is impossible to know with complete certainty whether the supernatural exists, regardless of what one believes about it. Even Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist.
    No, the burden of proof lies on the side of whoever is making the positive metaphysical claim. As Wikipedia so neatly puts it:

    The Fallacy of Demanding Negative Proof

    Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.

    Let's say I tell you there's a magical invisible unicorn in my back yard. I don't have any evidence of its existence, and you don't have any evidence of its non-existence. But that doesn't mean that "both sides are equally proven". The scientific method demands that the one making a positive claim defend their view with evidence.

    Theism is not a 'lack of belief in the non-existence of god', because this implies that the default position is one of belief, and that from this, non-existence must then be proven. According to the burden of proof the opposite is true; the default position is one of lack of belief, and existence must be proven.

    Also, the vast majority of atheists are agnostics.
    How on earth does agreeing that the burden of proof lies on the side of those making metaphysical claims prove your point?

    And again, some atheists subscribe to certain beliefs about the nature of the universe, but one doesn't need to have a stated belief about the supernatural to be an atheist. Atheism itself is not a belief system, it's a lack of belief.
    I'd love to hear how any of those documents constitute empirical evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
    By 'evidence' I mean verifiable, reproducible empirical evidence documented in accordance with the scientific method.

    Can you provide an example of such?
    So I've heard, good luck with that. And I was doing that before I got promoted xD more so I have the ability to ban members; but only if I really have to. For the most part the rest of the staff handle themselves quite well.
    Lol you haven't been on for a while x3 thanks Shade, glad to still see you around.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…