-->
@zedvictor4
You are proof that theistic hypotheses are.Proof enough for me any way.
So "belief" isn't worthless.
Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
Posts
Total:
417
-->
@zedvictor4
I would therefore further suggest that actually and without consideration, you accept that I am human, rather than actually invoking the necessity of belief.
i cannot do that
-->
@Athias
Ongoing belief in a hypothesis, where the is no attempt to verify the hypothesis is worthless.
So verify the hypothesis and show me a GOD.
Though the variability of words and language does allow us to attribute a secondary value to the contentment found in conditioned data.
Nonetheless the discussion here is specifically about the belief in a hypothetical deity. Rather than the contentment found therein.
For sure we can broaden the parameters of any discussion to take anything into account.
-->
@3RU7AL
I cannot do that.
I was suggesting that the process and outcome was probably involuntary.
Therefore you did "that" without consideration or effort.
Though I'm less than certain of the veracity of the comment.
And more inclined towards Athian resonance.
The synchronous vibration of a neighbouring object, as it were.
Whereby the resultant effect is cynical.
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore you did "that" without consideration or effort.
we're only considering conscious thoughts here
i'm fascinated by your attempt to read-my-mind
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
-->
@3RU7AL
Epistemological.
That's one of your favourites.
Factuality maybe limited.
Though the definition of knowledge is quite broad.
One was simply relating personal behaviour to the situation.
Without any depth of consideration I have always assumed that you were human.
Foolish perhaps?
I'm not going to read what everyone's already said, but here's my two bits.
I don't have a lack of belief about God, I have a very strong belief against the concept of God, especially the Christian one. The stories from the Bible and other folklore is incompatible with my own observations of how the universe IS. It wouldn't require evidence to inform a belief in God in my case, it would require an overwhelming amount of evidence in the face of all the science I have learned, of all the prayers I've made unanswered, of every injustice in the world despite the claim of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
And I call that atheism. But the word isn't important.
Atheists require God's existence to "prove" that he doesn't exist. They use logic and reason without justifying them epistemically .
-->
@zedvictor4
Without any depth of consideration I have always assumed that you were human.Foolish perhaps?
i'd say less than "foolish"
more like, "unnecessary"
-->
@zedvictor4
Ongoing belief in a hypothesis, where the is no attempt to verify the hypothesis is worthless.
Verification which you've determined to be a consensus in relation to factual knowledge. Assuming a consensus among theists, would their collective agreement suffice as verification?
So verify the hypothesis and show me a GOD.
Again, is it your position that a GOD which has yet to be shown to you is proof positive that an actually existent GOD is not fact?
Intelligent Man: 'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,'
-->
@Athias
An actually existent GOD is currently not a fact.
So there is one obvious way for theists to clear up this issue.
Atheists have nothing to clarify.
Makes no difference what one or a million theists believe.
I am currently content with there not being an existent GOD.
I would be just as content if it was proven to me that there is an existent GOD.
Quite frankly it's more than a tad stupid that GOD itself doesn't clarify the issue once and for all.
Rather than visit one bloke, up a mountain a few thousand years ago and present him with a few lumps of chiselled stone.
Surely OMNIGOD had already got technology in the bag.
Even if it was just a pencil and paper.
-->
@3RU7AL
I would say so.
-->
@zedvictor4
An actually existent GOD is currently not a fact.
Prove it.
So there is one obvious way for theists to clear up this issue.
Show you GOD. Again, do you believe that a God's not being shown to you is proof positive that actually existent Gods aren't fact?
Atheists have nothing to clarify.
Failure to prove "God is fact" =/= Proof that "God ISN'T fact." Any atheist who affirms that "God ISN'T fact," bears an obligation to demonstrate "God ISN'T fact."
Makes no difference what one or a million theists believe.
So consensus doesn't matter? How else do you verify?
I am currently content with there not being an existent GOD.
Prove the basis of your contentment.
Quite frankly it's more than a tad stupid that GOD itself doesn't clarify the issue once and for all.
To whom? And why would it matter?
Even if it was just a pencil and paper.
Is God's not writing you proof positive that God isn't fact?
-->
@Athias
A GODDO not being proven to be real and existent, is proof enough that an existent GOD is currently not a fact.
Words Words Words.
And therein lies another tale of Universal purpose.
Wherein The GOD Principle is sound.
Nighty Night,
Bedtime in the UK.
-->
@zedvictor4
A GODDO not being proven to be real and existent, is proof enough that an existent GOD is currently not a fact.
Logically inconsistent reasoning. Perhaps you "believe" this to be the case since you have yet to prove your affirmation?
Words Words Words.And therein lies another tale of Universal purpose.Wherein The GOD Principle is sound.
Weren't you the one who cited a lexical distinction between "fact" and "belief"?
-->
@Athias
Atheists have nothing to clarify.Failure to prove "God is fact" =/= Proof that "God ISN'T fact." Any atheist who affirms that "God ISN'T fact," bears an obligation to demonstrate "God ISN'T fact."
I HAVE NO BURDEN-OF-PROOF
WHEN I STATE THAT BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT
-->
@3RU7AL
I HAVE NO BURDEN-OF-PROOFWHEN I STATE THAT BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT
Why is that?
-->
@Athias
I HAVE NO BURDEN-OF-PROOFWHEN I STATE THAT BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACTWhy is that?
BECAUSE FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
-->
@3RU7AL
BECAUSE FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
Yes, but that does not speak to your claim that one bears no onus when one affirms that Bigfoot does not qualify as fact. You only provided a description of "fact." Now speak to the claim "BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT" creating no onus.
-->
@Athias
BECAUSE FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARYYes, but that does not speak to your claim that one bears no onus when one affirms that Bigfoot does not qualify as fact. You only provided a description of "fact." Now speak to the claim "BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT" creating no onus.
for example.
if i tell you that x = 343.231
this may or may not be true
and you are not expected to believe me
and you are not expected to DISprove my claim
it is very clearly my burden (as the one making the positive claim)
to show proof
furthermore,
your failure to accept x = 343.231 (on my word alone)
does not, in and of itself
constitute a "counter-claim"
you are not calling me "a liar" simply by not accepting my claim prima facie
and you are not de facto claiming that x != 343.231
-->
@3RU7AL
for example.if i tell you that x = 343.231this may or may not be trueand you are not expected to believe meand you are not expected to DISprove my claimit is very clearly my burden (as the one making the positive claim)to show prooffurthermore,your failure to accept x = 343.231 (on my word alone)does not, in and of itselfconstitute a "counter-claim"you are not calling me "a liar" simply by not accepting my claim prima facieand you are not de facto claiming that x != 343.231
This is not about that which one "accepts." This is about the creation of onus probandi. The burden of proof is created with the affirmation of a claim, whether it be positive or negative. I STATE THAT BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT =/= I DON'T "ACCEPT" BIG-FOOT'S QUALIFYING AS FACT ON ONE'S WORD ALONE. The former requires proof/substantiation while the latter doesn't--or at the very least, the latter's statement is proof of itself in and of itself.
So when an atheist states or affirms "God isn't fact" or "God does not exist" or "God isn't real," etc., these claims are not proven by default because one does not accept or refuses to accept their inverses. If I claim, "C," I am expected/obligated to provide "P," even if that "C" negates the C of another.
-->
@Athias
BIGFOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FACT
THE PROOF OF THIS IS
FACT REQUIRES EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND OR LOGICAL NECESSITY
BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION
AND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY
(pro tip: you can counter this by providing your personally preferred definitions of "bigfoot" and or "fact")
-->
@3RU7AL
BIGFOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FACT
You are affirming a claim; hence, you are obligated/expected to provide proof/substantiation/demonstration.
BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATIONAND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY
Why is that?
(pro tip: you can counter this by providing your personally preferred definitions of "bigfoot" and or "fact")
As you pointed out, I'm not expected to DISPROVE/COUNTER your claim; I can however measure the extent to which you've substantiated your claim.
-->
@Athias
THE PROOF OF THIS IS
FACT REQUIRES EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND OR LOGICAL NECESSITY
-->
@3RU7AL
You stated, "BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY." Why?
-->
@Athias
You stated, "BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY." Why?
hold on a second,
can we agree that there is an important difference between FACT and FICTION ?
-->
@3RU7AL
hold on a second,can we agree that there is an important difference between FACT and FICTION ?
It is your claim that Bigfoot is fiction? Why?
And there is a clear lexical difference between "Fact" and "Fiction," given that "Fiction" is an antonym of "Fact."
So secondary observers exhibiting an incapacity to corroborate or confirm physical evidence informs the negation of fact?
-->
@Athias
So secondary observers exhibiting an incapacity to corroborate or confirm physical evidence informs the negation of fact?
not necessarily the "negation" of fact
but the reasonable "lack of acceptance" of a proposed and not logically impossible "fact"