Youtube Atheist Movement

[lazerus]

"I know there is no god" is a statement of faith? Does that mean that, by saying it, I have the burden of proof to show there is no god?

Yes, if you state you can prove there is no god it then falls to you to back up that statement.

Ah, I knew it. That's a fallacy, dude.

Hey, dumbass, I understand your not much for reading comprehension, but could you at least make a token attempt not to post arguments that have already been rebutted in this thread. To quote the others who already banished this point...

It is not. One can easily prove negative claims such as "there are no red socks in my drawer". The fallacy is "you cannot prove this isn't true, therefore it must be true", which is not the same thing. The problem with proving that God doesn't exist, is that "God" is a very ill-defined term, which is convenient for theists who like to rely on said fallacy. But if you claim to have proof of God's non-existence, then it is of course up to you to present those proofs, not up to the other side to prove that you don't have those proofs.

[Rye]

Ah, I knew it. That's a fallacy, dude.

I think "proof" that there are no invisible magical men is a bit strong of a demand, and pretty damn stupid when you consider what concept is being denied as realistic. Being asked why you came to that conclusion isn't fallacious, though.

[General Zod]

Let me give an example of how proving an actual negative is difficult if not impossible. Person X claims they've never been to a specific city/bar/house/whatever. Person Y doesn't believe their claim and demands proof. How does Person X prove this?

[Superman]

Yes, if you state you can prove there is no god it then falls to you to back up that statement.
Hey, dumbass, I understand your not much for reading comprehension, but could you at least make a token attempt not to post arguments that have already been rebutted in this thread. To quote the others who already banished this point...

Oh, are you going to cry now because I won your little argument? Thanks for pointing out that someone already said it. I'll be more careful next time so you don't get your panties in a wad.

[Superman]

And I still fail to see the distinction, so if someone could enlighten me... I would appreciate it.

[Big Phil]

Superman - claiming "victory" like you just did is beneath you, and more like some BS Darkstar would pull. You've been given several rebuttals to your point, and you're just being bullheaded and refusing to acknowledge them.

[Superman]

Superman - claiming "victory" like you just did is beneath you, and more like some BS Darkstar would pull. You've been given several rebuttals to your point, and you're just being bullheaded and refusing to acknowledge them.

I reread the post and I concede I was wrong to say I won that argument. Sorry to you, Laz. Here's the part that confused me.

The statement "I know there is no god."

...as being as a statement or declaration requiring proof, because I assumed it was more of a default position. I see that's not exactly a neutral position, so I have been schooled.

[Wicked Pilot]

Depending on the bounds of the discussion and the intricacies of the wording you can sometimes get away with proving the negative, but it's trivially simple to tweak the discussion, move the goalpost, or simply happen to come across new information that changes everything. As such I prefer to deal it degrees of certainty. You cannot say that 100% of everyone who jumps/falls out of an airplane without a parachute dies, but you can say that percentage such and such of people who fall naturally from above 1000ft do die. Moreover, of all the people who jump out of airplanes, only a certain very small percentage do so without a parachute. Therefore, the likelihood of you never jumping out of an aircraft at high altitude without a parachute is pretty damn high.

So lets say we crunch the numbers and we come up with a 99.995% chance your full of shit. You can heehaw all you want, make up one excuse and wild ass claim after another, because if they increase the likelihood you're telling the truth, it won't make more than a small dent in the numbers. It's not like I'm defending absolute certainty. But if you come along an present real 'no shit' evidence, then the numbers change, and I'll believe you. And even though by beliefs changed along the way they were never anything other than the only rational decision that could have been made with the evidence at the time. So no apologies on calling you full of shit.

[lazerus]

Oh, are you going to cry now because I won your little argument? Thanks for pointing out that someone already said it. I'll be more careful next time so you don't get your panties in a wad.

Hey dip-shit, I just posted a rebuttal to your argument which you have not acknowledged, in fact, you have ignored it and claimed victory. Last I checked "Back up your crap or concede", was kind of, you know, a rule around here.

Or are you too busy being a whiny, thick-headed bitch to actually admit that your wrong, or at least consider my points instead of throwing up a wall of ignorance and shouting "I DON'T GET IT! I DON'T GET IT!"?

[lazerus]

GHETTO EDIT: That'll teach me to reply before I've read the new posts. Sorry Superman, saw your retraction.

[Superman]

GHETTO EDIT: That'll teach me to reply before I've read the new posts. Sorry Superman, saw your retraction.

No, I was clearly in the wrong. No need for you to apologize at all. Thanks for accepting mine.

[b00tleg]

The last quote in my sig, I love it

[Elaro]

Let me give an example of how proving an actual negative is difficult if not impossible. Person X claims they've never been to a specific city/bar/house/whatever. Person Y doesn't believe their claim and demands proof. How does Person X prove this?

Prove? In the absence of any evidence (including memory) of him being there, it is assumed that he has never set foot in Whatever.

In polite society, in the absence of evidence, the negative is always the default position. "Innocent before proven guilty", and all that. Let me rephrase your question in a more modern setting: "The US government doesn't know whether Mohammed Muslim has had a contact with Al Quaeda. Mohammed claims to have never been in contact with Al-Quaeda. The US government doesn't believe their claim and demands proof (through a court of law)." Or "General Zod never was in my room." The first statement would be a violation of habeas corpus and the second, well, unless you ever lived on the West Island of Montreal, Quebec, Canada,

For a methodical thinker, every positive declaration is false until evidence supports its truth.

[Elaro]

Gah! Ghetto edit.

In polite society, in the absence of evidence, the negative is always the default position. "Innocent before proven guilty", and all that. Let me rephrase your question in a more modern setting: "The US government doesn't know whether Mohammed Muslim has had a contact with Al Quaeda. Mohammed claims to have never been in contact with Al-Quaeda. The US government doesn't believe their claim and demands proof (through a court of law)." Or "General Zod never was in my room." The first statement would be a violation of habeas corpus and the second, well, unless you ever lived on the West Island of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, we can agree that this negative statement is proven.

[General Zod]

Let me give an example of how proving an actual negative is difficult if not impossible. Person X claims they've never been to a specific city/bar/house/whatever. Person Y doesn't believe their claim and demands proof. How does Person X prove this?

Prove? In the absence of any evidence (including memory) of him being there, it is assumed that he has never set foot in Whatever.

In polite society, in the absence of evidence, the negative is always the default position. "Innocent before proven guilty", and all that. Let me rephrase your question in a more modern setting: "The US government doesn't know whether Mohammed Muslim has had a contact with Al Quaeda. Mohammed claims to have never been in contact with Al-Quaeda. The US government doesn't believe their claim and demands proof (through a court of law)." Or "General Zod never was in my room." The first statement would be a violation of habeas corpus and the second, well, unless you ever lived on the West Island of Montreal, Quebec, Canada,

For a methodical thinker, every positive declaration is false until evidence supports its truth.

Er, yeah? Isn't that what I already said? Not that it matters anymore since the point was already answered.

[LeftWingExtremist]

I kind of admire some othe You tube Atheists, and I like the fact they are willing to speak up like that. Ill admit I find some videos like capn,o,awesome's and amazing atheist's a bit hard to stomache, but I enjoy them quite a bit.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wouldn't proving that there is no god be as easy as showing that god is a man made concept?

The idea of god is an idea that came around when mankind had a child like understanding of the world, and to this date has never been substantiated.

[Big Phil]

Wouldn't proving that there is no god be as easy as showing that god is a man made concept?

The idea of god is an idea that came around when mankind had a child like understanding of the world, and to this date has never been substantiated.

If you can prove that there is no god, then you're WAAAAAAAY smarter than prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and others. Even they (if they're honest) don't say they can definitively prove their is no god; they just say there's no evidence for one and the odds in his favor are astronomically small. I paraphrased Dawkins above - he's not even the most prominent atheist, but he's the most relevant at the moment given his recent book: The God Delusion.

[Molyneux]

Wouldn't proving that there is no god be as easy as showing that god is a man made concept?

The idea of god is an idea that came around when mankind had a child like understanding of the world, and to this date has never been substantiated.

If you can prove that there is no god, then you're WAAAAAAAY smarter than prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and others. Even they (if they're honest) don't say they can definitively prove their is no god; they just say there's no evidence for one and the odds in his favor are astronomically small. I paraphrased Dawkins above - he's not even the most prominent atheist, but he's the most relevant at the moment given his recent book: The God Delusion.

The burden of proof for the existence of a God rests on theists, not atheists; extraordinary claims, as the saying goes, require extraordinary evidence.

In the absence of evidence concerning a deity, the default position is that one does not exist.

[Lord Relvenous]

Wouldn't proving that there is no god be as easy as showing that god is a man made concept?

The idea of god is an idea that came around when mankind had a child like understanding of the world, and to this date has never been substantiated.

Ah, but logic would dictate that just because humans cmae to the concept of God on their own does not mean that there actually is one.

That's like saying the opposite is automatically true if you think "My parent's met in a bar." whitout any outside information. Just because you came to the idea on your own does not mean it is completely valid.

The fact that God is a man-made concept does not prove God's inexistence in your argument.

[Big Phil]

Wouldn't proving that there is no god be as easy as showing that god is a man made concept?

The idea of god is an idea that came around when mankind had a child like understanding of the world, and to this date has never been substantiated.

If you can prove that there is no god, then you're WAAAAAAAY smarter than prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and others. Even they (if they're honest) don't say they can definitively prove their is no god; they just say there's no evidence for one and the odds in his favor are astronomically small. I paraphrased Dawkins above - he's not even the most prominent atheist, but he's the most relevant at the moment given his recent book: The God Delusion.

The burden of proof for the existence of a God rests on theists, not atheists; extraordinary claims, as the saying goes, require extraordinary evidence.

In the absence of evidence concerning a deity, the default position is that one does not exist.

Did you even read the rest of this thread? I'm not going to bother explaining this to somebody else... again. When somebody like Richard Dawkins refrains from making this argument, you might want to sit up and pay attention. He's not making this argument for a reason.

[Molyneux]

If you can prove that there is no god, then you're WAAAAAAAY smarter than prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and others. Even they (if they're honest) don't say they can definitively prove their is no god; they just say there's no evidence for one and the odds in his favor are astronomically small. I paraphrased Dawkins above - he's not even the most prominent atheist, but he's the most relevant at the moment given his recent book: The God Delusion.

The burden of proof for the existence of a God rests on theists, not atheists; extraordinary claims, as the saying goes, require extraordinary evidence.

In the absence of evidence concerning a deity, the default position is that one does not exist.

Did you even read the rest of this thread? I'm not going to bother explaining this to somebody else... again. When somebody like Richard Dawkins refrains from making this argument, you might want to sit up and pay attention. He's not making this argument for a reason.

Let me rephrase, then.

The probability of a God existing, given the current evidence, is so vanishingly small that it's far more likely for a thousand flying naked Playboy Bunnies to ravish me right now this very second than it is for a God to exist. It is impossible in the same way that a coffee cup quantum-tunneling through a desk is impossible - not really impossible, but so incredibly improbable that it's simpler to just call it impossible and be done with it.

Better?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wouldn't proving that there is no god be as easy as showing that god is a man made concept?

The idea of god is an idea that came around when mankind had a child like understanding of the world, and to this date has never been substantiated.

If you can prove that there is no god, then you're WAAAAAAAY smarter than prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and others. Even they (if they're honest) don't say they can definitively prove their is no god; they just say there's no evidence for one and the odds in his favor are astronomically small. I paraphrased Dawkins above - he's not even the most prominent atheist, but he's the most relevant at the moment given his recent book: The God Delusion.

Isn't the fact that the idea of god came about during a time when man understood very little evidence against it?

Of course, I'm not saying I can absolutely prove that god does not exist, but the evidence that the idea of god is unsubstantiated, and man made is readily available. That evidence makes it highly likely that god is not real.

Just like the evidence makes it highly likely that if you drop something it will fall. Overall, I have to agree with Molyneux. We're talking about numbers that are so large or small that it is just simpler to say "does exist" or "does not exist".

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wouldn't proving that there is no god be as easy as showing that god is a man made concept?

The idea of god is an idea that came around when mankind had a child like understanding of the world, and to this date has never been substantiated.

Ah, but logic would dictate that just because humans cmae to the concept of God on their own does not mean that there actually is one.

That's like saying the opposite is automatically true if you think "My parent's met in a bar." whitout any outside information. Just because you came to the idea on your own does not mean it is completely valid.

The fact that God is a man-made concept does not prove God's inexistence in your argument.

What are you talking about when you say prove? It sounds like we're all saying the same thing, but some of us are just sugar coating our words.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also, Richard Dawkins doesn't make that argument because he doesn't have to, and not because it can't be done.