Question 1 for Atheists

[alphamale]

Atheism is a religious belief - ie, they assert something the cannot prove, whereas agnostics like myself don't claim to know one way or the other. Anyone who has taken Logic 101 knows that proving a negative is usually very difficult, but it happens all the time, eg liberals assert there are no WMDs in iraq, but can't prove it.

 

[kal-el]

Atheism is a religious belief - ie,

How ya figure?

they assert something the cannot prove,

A strong atheist asserts that. A weak atheist has no reason to believe in a God.

whereas agnostics like myself don't claim to know one way or the other.

Correct

Anyone who has taken Logic 101 knows that proving a negative is usually very difficult, but it happens all the time, eg liberals assert there are no WMDs in iraq, but can't prove it.

Uhh, Liberals do not have to prove this. The Bush Administration used WMDs as a guise for this war. The burden of proof is on them, and ther's no evidence that Iraq had WMDs when we invaded.

 

[alphamale]

Uhh, Liberals do not have to prove this. The Bush Administration used WMDs as a guise for this war. The burden of proof is on them, and ther's no evidence that Iraq had WMDs when we invaded.

I'm not talking about Bush. Plenty of liberals have said there are no WMDs, and they can't prove it.

 

[kal-el]

I'm not talking about Bush. Plenty of liberals have said there are no WMDs, and they can't prove it.

Well obviously they have because none have been found. If it is proven that nothings there, anyone can assert that "they know", it's already been proven. For example, I can say that there's a pink unicorn in the trunk of my car, if anyone looks, I don't. So the obligation to prove something falls on those making the claim. The doubter does not have to prove anything, the believer must try and convince the doubter with observational proof. So it is fair to say "Iraq had no WMDs prior to the start of the invasion" as the believers (Bush & Co) have failed to provide even a scintilla of evidence supporting the WMD theory.

 

[alphamale]

Well obviously they have because none have been found.

Logical liberals, if there are such, don't make the claim on that basis, because they know that WMDs not having been found is insuffiecient proof for such an assertion.

If it is proven that nothings there, anyone can assert that "they know", it's already been proven.

Whaaaat??

So the obligation to prove something falls on those making the claim.

That's riiiiight ... so liberals shouldn't claim something they can't prove.

The doubter does not have to prove anything, the believer must try and convince the doubter with observational proof. So it is fair to say "Iraq had no WMDs prior to the start of the invasion" as the believers (Bush & Co) have failed to provide even a scintilla of evidence supporting the WMD theory.

Uh, you don't get. Liberals have ASSERTED there are no WMDs. (Reread that sentence about 20 times till it sinks in.) They HAVEN"T proven their assertion.

 

[LittleMammoth]

Logical liberals, if there are such, don't make the claim on that basis, because they know that WMDs not having been found is insuffiecient proof for such an assertion.

The burden of proof does not lie on our heads. Bush says there ARE WMDs in Iraq and after a few years there have been none found denies conservatives their assertion. Thats like a prosecutor in a murder trial saying his DNA is on the victims body . . . we just haven't found it yet. He would be laughed out of court. So to say liberals are not logical yet you give this type of argument is assinine. You are saying there are WMDs you therefore have to prove it. The only proof that Bush had such as the metal tubes have been shown to be completely false again hurting the argument further.

That's riiiiight ... so liberals shouldn't claim something they can't prove.

You assert there are WMDs, you must show there is something there. The burden of proof in this case does not lie on the liberal side.

Uh, you don't get. Liberals have ASSERTED there are no WMDs. (Reread that sentence about 20 times till it sinks in.) They HAVEN"T proven their assertion.

Again we counter your argument that says there are WMDs. There is no proof that there are or were WMDs when the U.S. invaded Iraq. This very fact hurts your assertion much more then ours.

 

[kal-el]

Logical liberals, if there are such, don't make the claim on that basis, because they know that WMDs not having been found is insuffiecient proof for such an assertion.

First off, I don't know why you're being so beligerrent here, it's been a long day, otherwise I'd be happy to mudsling with ya. Listen, even your fellow conservatives make that claim now also. And the fact that we have been occupying Iraq going on 4 years and haven't found so much as a miniscule of evidence of WMDs, saying there's no WMDs is a perfectly logical assumption to make.

Whaaaat??

Yea, I phrased that wrong. What I mean was Bush's WMD claims have been proven erroneous. If Bush's intelligence were even remotely being truthful, we would have found them.

That's riiiiight ... so liberals shouldn't claim something they can't prove.

O geese, not another Navy Pride.:doh

Uh, you don't get. Liberals have ASSERTED there are no WMDs. (Reread that sentence about 20 times till it sinks in.) They HAVEN"T proven their assertion.

Prove to me that liberals "asserted" such. I don't believe ya.:lol:

 

[LittleMammoth]

As for the burden of proof of a god(s)/deity I think the book Does God Exist has a good take on it. If you do not know the book it is written by Todd C. Moody, an associate professor at St. Joseph's University. It is a fictional dialogue between 3 students at a random College talking about, as the title suggests, the existance of God. The three students are David - Theist, Oscar - Atheist, Sophie - acts as a moderator making points for both sides.

"Sophie: I mean, do you usually believe only in the things that you have good reason to believe in, or do you believe in everything that hasn't been shown not to exist
David: Aren't they just about he same thing?
Sophie: No, think about it. Do you believe there are unicorns?
David: No.
Sophie: Why not?
David: They're mythological creatures, inventions of the human imagination.
Sophie: But how do you know that?
david: I see. I guess I don't believe in unicorns because I've never been given any good reason to believe in them. No one has ever found one, or the remains of one, or anything like that."

If someone from St. Joseph's shows/admits that the burden of proof falls on Theist hands, I can't see why so many others can't.

Its a good book which topples the subject fairly well. It shows the basics of both sides of the debate which is ultimately science vs faith.

 

[alphamale]

Prove to me that liberals "asserted" such. I don't believe ya.

E.g., James Carville on CNN, Crossfire, July 23, 2004:

QUOTE: "We know there are no WMDs."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/23/cf.00.html

Q.E.D.

 

[LittleMammoth]

E.g., James Carville on CNN, Crossfire, July 23, 2004:

QUOTE: "We know there are no WMDs."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/23/cf.00.html

Q.E.D.

Prove that there are WMDs in Iraq as Asserted by the president. YOU CAN'T. This false assertion, false due to lack of evidence/false evidence, is the reason why thousands of Iraqis and Americans are dying in the Middle East. So instead of trying to turn the burden of truth on the liberals, where it does not belong, prove yourself that these soldiers are not dying in vain. We see no evidence that they are so lets get them the **** out of there.

 

[alphamale]

Prove that there are WMDs in Iraq as Asserted by the president. YOU CAN'T. This false assertion, false due to lack of evidence/false evidence, is the reason why thousands of Iraqis and Americans are dying in the Middle East. So instead of trying to turn the burden of truth on the liberals, where it does not belong, prove yourself that these soldiers are not dying in vain. We see no evidence that they are so lets get them the **** out of there.

You are simply confused. That Bush hasn't proven that there are WMDs does not ipso facto prove that there are no wmds. The two assertions are separate, each stands or falls on its own proof. I suggest that you get an elementary logic book and read it from cover to cover.

 

[LittleMammoth]

You are simply confused. That Bush hasn't proven that there are WMDs does not ipso facto prove that there are no wmds. The two assertions are separate, each stands or falls on its own proof. I suggest that you get an elementary logic book and read it from cover to cover.

The burden of proof does not lie on the negative. Just like it is not an atheists position prove there is no god. The person asserting that there IS something where there is no visible proof. If we use your logic I can say that there is WMDs at my local elementary school so therefore I will go there kill all of the kids. There is no current proof that there aren't weapons of mass destruction so I would be completely justifified according to your logic. Using your logic anyone has the right to do anything which they want to assert. Learn about the burden of proof and come back when you can debate about that. Otherwise your argument has nothing to stand on and just falls through the floor with scat spread upon it. You have to prove that WMDs are present in order to justify invasion. End of story if you can't do that than there is no debate. You therefore have NOTHING

 

[Donkey1499]

I think that everything around us; all trees, animals, fungus, etc.; are proof of God's existence. There is no possible way that all this was done on accident. The odds are against it. But that's just my belief.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Atheists often tell Christian's that god does not exist. So here is a question for you. Prove to me that God does not exist. Don't tell me that because you yourself haven't seen god he can't possibly exist. Throughout the course of history many many people have seen god. If you don't believe that god exists...

Prove it.

Prove to me that 12 headed space creatures aren't living in a parallel universe monitoring our every move.

Prove it.

 

[Dogger807]

I think that everything around us; all trees, animals, fungus, etc.; are proof of God's existence. There is no possible way that all this was done on accident. The odds are against it. But that's just my belief.

This is an awful big universe with an awful lot of time behind it...even if I were to agree the "odds were against it" as you state you have to realize the odds have to be hit somewhere. Just like someone has to win the loto only on astronomical levels.

And even if it were proof of intelligent designer, which it's not, what makes you beliefs said designer is the god of the christian bible?

 

[Donkey1499]

This is an awful big universe with an awful lot of time behind it...even if I were to agree the "odds were against it" as you state you have to realize the odds have to be hit somewhere. Just like someone has to win the loto only on astronomical levels.

And even if it were proof of intelligent designer, which it's not, what makes you beliefs said designer is the god of the christian bible?

What makes you believe it's not the proof of an intelligent designer?

 

[Captain America]

I took a full sumester on intelugent desine. But then again, I wuz homeskooled.

 

[Donkey1499]

I gotta ****, I'll be right back.

 

[kal-el]

E.g., James Carville on CNN, Crossfire, July 23, 2004:

QUOTE: "We know there are no WMDs."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/23/cf.00.html

Q.E.D.

Good job spotee. You have demonstrated that you have the ability to look up information via a google search. Now do you have the ability to shake exactly 1 asprin out of a bottle because you gave me a headache last night.:lol:

 

[Dogger807]

What makes you believe it's not the proof of an intelligent designer?

your making the same old argument made by all theists. Basically your saying that you can't conceive something is one way so it must be the other and thusly that is proof. Simple put, your inability to conceive something is not proof that the easier more superstitious answer is true.

 

[jallman]

your making the same old argument made by all theists. Basically your saying that you can't conceive something is one way so it must be the other and thusly that is proof. Simple put, your inability to conceive something is not proof that the easier more superstitious answer is true.

so, you really think that the complexities that come along with the admission that there is some intelligent designer or....dare I say it, God...is the easy way out? Do you really subscribe to the belief that something greater than our human knowledge may be out there is something smaller to consider than the possibility that there is?

 

[Dogger807]

so, you really think that the complexities that come along with the admission that there is some intelligent designer or....dare I say it, God...is the easy way out? Do you really subscribe to the belief that something greater than our human knowledge may be out there is something smaller to consider than the possibility that there is?

To the first sentence (Despite the wording that implies the existence of a intelligent designer) I will reply yes.

The second sentence is invalid because of it's ambiguity. There is much beyond our human knowledge. However if read strictly as to whether or not I think believing in gods is a primitive, easy way out, then that's an affirmative.