Those Freedom Loving Liberals!

[ChaosRain]

What sort of hard evidence do you have that nature is all that exist and all that ever will exist? What sort of verified thing have you found that invalidates all claims of anything that isn't directly linked to nature?

All of the available evidence that we have. As much as you wish it weren't the case, the Burden of Proof for the existence of the supernatural is not on the atheist to disprove, but upon the theist to prove. The atheist is not required to disprove religions; religions are required to prove themselves. Classic burden of proof fallacy that so many religious people make.

That is the big one, one that would require the refutation of every religion that claims that isn't true. Something I know you haven't done and I know no atheist has done either. If you haven't done it, doesn't that make it an unverified claim that is trusted on faith?

Again, the burden of proof for the supernatural is on the theist to prove, not on the atheist to disprove. We have an absence of evidence for the supernatural, so we move forward with dismissal until it is verified to exist. The only unverified claim here that is trusted on faith, is the existence of the supernatural and of the god that you worship.

Can you give an actual reason why 'religion should be abolished' beyond your opinion that it should be?

Intellectual dishonesty. Childhood indoctrination. Genocide. FGM. Child abuse. Slavery. Racism. Reality-denial. Shall I go on?

[lilpixieofterror]

All of the available evidence that we have. As much as you wish it weren't the case, the Burden of Proof for the existence of the supernatural is not on the atheist to disprove, but upon the theist to prove. The atheist is not required to disprove religions; religions are required to prove themselves. Classic burden of proof fallacy that so many religious people make.

Sorry, but burden of proof sits upon the ones making positive claims and claiming that nature is the only thing that exist is a positive claim. Nice burden shift, but you might want to try a wee bit harder. Making your beliefs into the default position and people need to prove things to you, that you don't need to, is a pretty classic thing Christians have been guilty for too, but that doesn't excuse you. Christians and atheist have a burden, like it or not, and trying to remove your own burden is the classic sign of a person who can't defend their beliefs.

Again, the burden of proof for the supernatural is on the theist to prove, not on the atheist to disprove. We have an absence of evidence for the supernatural, so we move forward with dismissal until it is verified to exist. The only unverified claim here that is trusted on faith, is the existence of the supernatural and of the god that you worship.

Sorry, but that I already showed that isn't true. You're welcome to try to make your beliefs the default position, but I will not let you do that. The idea that nature is all that exist is a positive claim that needs evidence just as much as the idea that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God does too. Both claims require evidence. Now stop being lazy and start working on it.

Intellectual dishonesty. Childhood indoctrination. Genocide. FGM. Child abuse. Slavery. Racism. Reality-denial. Shall I go on?

Let me make a list:

Intellectual dishonest - you mean like trying to make your claim into the default position and people have to prove things to you while you sit upon your throne and cast divine judgment upon them?
Child indoctrination - do you teach your kids atheism or do you let them 'choose their on beliefs'? Last I checked, atheist are just as inclined to teach their children what they believe as anybody else is.
Genocide - you don't need religion, to kill lots of people. The atheist of the USSR and China (which yes, socialism's default position is atheism) killed lots of people for things that you would call genocide. Stalin starved over a million people to death in the 1920's and the USSR targeted Christians, Jews, and Muslims for death too. So I guess atheism should be eliminated too?
FGM - Christians have not done this one (in fact, many Christian groups fight this in Africa). Might want to talk to Muslims about this one.
Child abuse - atheist can abuse children too. Child abuse isn't limited by your religious beliefs.
Slavery - I already went over this one; the earliest abolitionist were Christians. Anyway, politics was the primary driver of slavery anyway. Not religion. Besides, Stalin worked plenty of people to death on his projects and kept them in slavery like conditions. Again, slavery isn't limited to religious beliefs, but stems across human beliefs.
Racism - One doesn't need religion, to be a racist either. The Bible says there is neither Greek nor Jew.
Reality-denial - As I showed above, reality denial isn't just limited to Christians, but atheist seem to be into this too.

Go ahead though, go on and give more examples of your reality denial. I enjoy watching people accuse Christians of crimes that are not limited by religion, but have plenty of things that have not a thing to do with religion.

[CMD]

As much as you wish it weren't the case, the Burden of Proof for the existence of the supernatural is not on the atheist to disprove, but upon the theist to prove. The atheist is not required to disprove religions; religions are required to prove themselves. Classic burden of proof fallacy that so many religious people make.

If I go to a Christian debate forum and start a thread titled "There is no God and your religion is false," that is a claim that I am making, and the burden of proof is thus on me to support that claim.

"Burden of proof" does not universally and explicitly apply to only one side of a given dispute regardless of context.

[ChaosRain]

Sorry, but burden of proof sits upon the ones making positive claims and claiming that nature is the only thing that exist is a positive claim. Nice burden shift, but you might want to try a wee bit harder. Making your beliefs into the default position and people need to prove things to you, that you don't need to, is a pretty classic thing Christians have been guilty for too, but that doesn't excuse you. Christians and atheist have a burden, like it or not, and trying to remove your own burden is the classic sign of a person who can't defend their beliefs.

Everything being natural is the default position, because it best explains what we see in the world, whilst making few, if any, assumptions. If you are here to make the claim that supernatural things exist outside of our perceived natural reality, when you are obligated to prove that these supernatural things exist. Like it or not, supernatural things existing is not the default position.

The burden that atheists have relies upon the fulfillment of the theistic burden of proof regarding the existence of their god. If you cannot prove that your god exists, then the atheist's burden is completed. I am not obligated to prove that gods do not exist, because that's not how the particular scenario works, with regard to the burden of proof. Believe in God? Great; prove that God exists.

Sorry, but that I already showed that isn't true. You're welcome to try to make your beliefs the default position, but I will not let you do that. The idea that nature is all that exist is a positive claim that needs evidence just as much as the idea that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God does too. Both claims require evidence. Now stop being lazy and start working on it.

And as I have already pointed out above, you're simply wrong. The claim that nature is all that exists is based upon all of our current observations of reality. Until you can demonstrate that the supernatural exists, a wholly natural universe is the default position. Once you prove that the supernatural exists, you will invalidate the default position - just as if you prove that God exists, you will invalidate the default position of atheism. Simple. Now stop being lazy and start working on it.

Let me make a list:

Of course.

Intellectual dishonest - you mean like trying to make your claim into the default position and people have to prove things to you while you sit upon your throne and cast divine judgment upon them?

Exactly; something you have demonstrated of yourself repeatedly in this conversation.

Child indoctrination - do you teach your kids atheism or do you let them 'choose their on beliefs'? Last I checked, atheist are just as inclined to teach their children what they believe as anybody else is.

You teach your children to think for themselves; to make their own choices. You wait until they are of an age at which they can make an intellectual decision for themselves, and provide them both options. The difference between an atheist and a theist when it comes to teaching their children, is that the atheist will not force any logically-unsound assumptions onto their children. Rejecting the existence of a god based upon a lack of evidence for said god is the default position; like it or not. Prove that God exists, and you get the luxury of having the default position.

Genocide - you don't need religion, to kill lots of people. The atheist of the USSR and China (which yes, socialism's default position is atheism) killed lots of people for things that you would call genocide. Stalin starved over a million people to death in the 1920's and the USSR targeted Christians, Jews, and Muslims for death too. So I guess atheism should be eliminated too?

Certainly not; but it definitely helps justify it if you claim divine providence when massacring people. And, last I checked, the USSR and China didn't kill people in the name of atheism; they killed people that didn't fit their agendas, or that they perceived were in the way. Also, any government's default position is atheism, aside from a theocracy, because atheism is the default position by default.

FGM - Christians have not done this one (in fact, many Christian groups fight this in Africa). Might want to talk to Muslims about this one.

Note that I was listing problems with religion, and not with a specific religion. My point stands tall.

Child abuse - atheist can abuse children too. Child abuse isn't limited by your religious beliefs.

No, but it certainly helps when you can point to the Qur'an or a specific passage within any holy book in order to justify pedophilia. Guess you also chose to ignore all of the pedophilia within the Church. Naturally.

Anybody can abuse children; but if we take mental illness out of the equation, religion is the only other thing that can cause child abuse.

Slavery - I already went over this one; the earliest abolitionist were Christians. Anyway, politics was the primary driver of slavery anyway. Not religion. Besides, Stalin worked plenty of people to death on his projects and kept them in slavery like conditions. Again, slavery isn't limited to religious beliefs, but stems across human beliefs.

Yes, but the earliest adopters were Christians as well; especially given the Old Testament's rather widespread opinions on slavery....

At least, from what I've seen. I won't claim to be a Bible master, but I get tidbits every now and again.

Racism - One doesn't need religion, to be a racist either. The Bible says there is neither Greek nor Jew.

And yet it also says that being black is a curse. Yet another example of Biblical self-contradiction.

Reality-denial - As I showed above, reality denial isn't just limited to Christians, but atheist seem to be into this too.

Again, neener neenering does you no credit - especially once you take into account the fact that atheists make no assumptions that are not logically sound to make. It's definitely more prevalent when it comes to the religious in general, than it is when it comes to atheists.

Go ahead though, go on and give more examples of your reality denial. I enjoy watching people accuse Christians of crimes that are not limited by religion, but have plenty of things that have not a thing to do with religion.

Well, I don't take it that you are a Biblical Literalist, so I won't go on that tangent, but considering my above points mostly stand (as far as I know), I don't think there's much more I can say, really. Religion may not always be the sole cause, but it certainly helps oft times.

[ChaosRain]

If I go to a Christian debate forum and start a thread titled "There is no God and your religion is false," that is a claim that I am making, and the burden of proof is thus on me to support that claim.

"Burden of proof" does not universally and explicitly apply to only one side of a given dispute regardless of context.

Of course, but that would be a gnostic atheistic assertion that would still be a negative claim, and would thus not be wholly false until gods are proven to exist. It's like me claiming "There are no unicorns, and your belief in them is false." Even if I cannot demonstrate that no unicorns exist, that does not invalidate my claim, as the side that claims that unicorns exist have not demonstrated that they do exist.

[phank]

If I go to a Christian debate forum and start a thread titled "There is no God and your religion is false," that is a claim that I am making, and the burden of proof is thus on me to support that claim.

"Burden of proof" does not universally and explicitly apply to only one side of a given dispute regardless of context.

This is a misunderstanding. The burden of proof is tightly bound with the notion of evidence. Let's say you make the claim that there are no gods, and let's say that your claim is in fact correct. But since it's impossible for you to produce evidence of the nonexistence of anything, your claim can only effectively be countered by producing at least one datum to the contrary. Making claims of nonexistence that cannot in principle be demonstrated, doesn't make those claims false.

So it would make more sense to say that the burden of proof lies with the evidence or absence of evidence. Which means the the burden lies with the positive claim, not the negative claim. Because only the positive claim is amenable to evidential support.

I think this would be cleared up with better wording - you should more properly say "there is no evidence of any gods, and your religion is fiction pending any." It's not necessary then for you to produce nonexistent evidence to support your claim.

[Epoetker]

Let's say you make the claim that there are no gods, and let's say that your claim is in fact correct. But since it's impossible for you to produce evidence of the nonexistence of anything, your claim can only effectively be countered by producing at least one datum to the contrary. Making claims of nonexistence that cannot in principle be demonstrated, doesn't make those claims false.

And vice versa. It is entirely unsurprising that incurious and provincial urbanites with no particular plans for the future would search first for a reason to stop searching, as any good news to the contrary would make them look bad. You may as well say "I find nothing intriguing or educational in repeated patterns and reports of supernatural experience in human history, find all attempts to organize and systematize them to be a waste of time, and encourage you all to a policy of not believing in or extrapolating from anything you haven't seen with your own eyes."

[Tassman]

And vice versa. It is entirely unsurprising that incurious and provincial urbanites with no particular plans for the future would search first for a reason to stop searching, as any good news to the contrary would make them look bad. You may as well say "I find nothing intriguing or educational in repeated patterns and reports of supernatural experience in human history, find all attempts to organize and systematize them to be a waste of time, and encourage you all to a policy of not believing in or extrapolating from anything you haven't seen with your own eyes."

No matter how intriguing or potentially educational seemingly repeated patterns and anecdotal reports of alleged supernatural experience throughout human history may have been, ALL “attempts to organize and systematize them” have come up with no substantiated evidence to support the claims whatsoever. To date ALL alleged supernatural events, upon investigation, have had natural explanations.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for phank to demand that the burden of proof be yours, because you are the one making the positive claim that something exists.

[lilpixieofterror]

Everything being natural is the default position, because it best explains what we see in the world, whilst making few, if any, assumptions. If you are here to make the claim that supernatural things exist outside of our perceived natural reality, when you are obligated to prove that these supernatural things exist. Like it or not, supernatural things existing is not the default position.

While I do love the bald assertions you make; what have you actually done to prove, once and for all, that every last person that claims an experience with God, is mistaken. Did you prove that Jesus didn't raise from the dead (for example)? If not, how could atheism being the default position when you haven't even been able to show that nature is all that exist and people that say otherwise are lying, mistaken, or both? The obvious answer is that your attempts to stack the deck in your favor are not going to work around here. Atheism is no more the 'default position' than Christianity is. Both need to provide evidence and explanations for their views. Being intellectually lazy isn't going to help you around here.

The burden that atheists have relies upon the fulfillment of the theistic burden of proof regarding the existence of their god. If you cannot prove that your god exists, then the atheist's burden is completed. I am not obligated to prove that gods do not exist, because that's not how the particular scenario works, with regard to the burden of proof. Believe in God? Great; prove that God exists.

Another bald assertion. Prove that nature is all that exist. Look at that, I can argue though assertion too. Now do you have an actual argument buried in here somewhere or do you not know how to read? See, a famous writer (GK Chesterton, if you're interested) wrote a two volume work on just sort of topic. Volume one (known as Heretics) mostly went over why his opponents were wrong. Volume two (known as Orthodoxy) was written to present evidence for his view since his critics criticized him for not offering an alternative. Problem with you modern skeptics and your 'lack of belief' nonsense is just that. You want to be free to criticize others, but you don't want to offer up any alternative and put what you believe to the test. That is the sign of a weak belief system that is incapable of standing up to strict criticism. GK Chesterton and his critics understood this and they did something many of you modern skeptics refuse to do. Put their beliefs up to the test. Why are you so afraid of offering up alternatives and so afraid of putting what you believe to the test? If God doesn't exist than nature is all that exist. That is a positive claim that indeed can be put up to the test and can be debated upon. Like it or not, that means your atheism is no more the 'default position' than Christianity is.

And as I have already pointed out above, you're simply wrong. The claim that nature is all that exists is based upon all of our current observations of reality. Until you can demonstrate that the supernatural exists, a wholly natural universe is the default position. Once you prove that the supernatural exists, you will invalidate the default position - just as if you prove that God exists, you will invalidate the default position of atheism. Simple. Now stop being lazy and start working on it.

I see that you're confused about the method of naturalism and the philosophy of naturalism. Go ahead and please show that ALL current observations of reality has shown nature is all that exist. I've read no paper on this, so this is merely a bald assertion that will remain a bald assertion until you stop being lazy and start doing what you demand of others. Sorry, but I see no need to put myself up to the test if you're unwilling/incapable of doing the same. I'm just going to keep pointing out your logical errors and laziness until you just admit that atheism is no more the 'default position' than theism is.

Exactly; something you have demonstrated of yourself repeatedly in this conversation.

You're lack of the ability to read is truly an amazing thing because I have clearly said (in the post you quoted, that you clearly didn't read) things like:

Christians and atheist have a burden, like it or not, and trying to remove your own burden is the classic sign of a person who can't defend their beliefs.

The idea that nature is all that exist is a positive claim that needs evidence just as much as the idea that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God does too. Both claims require evidence.

So, you're calling me lazy when you show you can't read basic English? How amusing.

You teach your children to think for themselves; to make their own choices. You wait until they are of an age at which they can make an intellectual decision for themselves, and provide them both options. The difference between an atheist and a theist when it comes to teaching their children, is that the atheist will not force any logically-unsound assumptions onto their children. Rejecting the existence of a god based upon a lack of evidence for said god is the default position; like it or not. Prove that God exists, and you get the luxury of having the default position.

Too bad many atheist don't do that. I know of several Christians who were raised by atheist that were raised that the idea of God(s) was nonsense. This is just plain wrong and I've already dealt with your second objection. Sorry, bald assertions are not arguments and repeating what you want to be true (no matter how much you want it to be true), does not make it true.

Certainly not; but it definitely helps justify it if you claim divine providence when massacring people. And, last I checked, the USSR and China didn't kill people in the name of atheism; they killed people that didn't fit their agendas, or that they perceived were in the way. Also, any government's default position is atheism, aside from a theocracy, because atheism is the default position by default.

Yep, the excuses galore. Where any crime, done by an atheist, is excused away by a mere wave of the hand and any crime done by a theist, is the result of theism. I love that deck stacking. Funny how Stalin and Mao took mass murder to new levels of excess and you make up excuses for it. Quite revealing of your beliefs. Second, if that is true, can you explain this line for the US Deceleration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

Oops, how embarrassing. I can't way to watch you develop your next excuse. Perhaps they were brainwashed, by those 'evil Christians' into writing that phrase? Yeah, lets go with that one.

Note that I was listing problems with religion, and not with a specific religion. My point stands tall.

Not my job to defend Islam. Want a defense of what I believe is indefensible, go ask a Muslim to see what they say. Not my job to defend them.

No, but it certainly helps when you can point to the Qur'an or a specific passage within any holy book in order to justify pedophilia. Guess you also chose to ignore all of the pedophilia within the Church. Naturally.

Not my job to defend Islam and I'd love to watch you point out a specific verse in the Bible. You're inability to defend your arguments, thus far, is quote amusing. Also, I don't recall saying the church was always blameless. Do you? Finally, believe it or not, pedophilia is not limited to theist, but is found among atheist too since it is a social issue first and foremost.

Anybody can abuse children; but if we take mental illness out of the equation, religion is the only other thing that can cause child abuse.

A bald assertion, that shows you don't know a thing about children. Believe it, children are abused everyday, by atheist and theist alike. Closing your eyes and hoping it goes away is yet another sign of a blind believer, who just can't accept his precious views can have followers that do evil things to others. Again, abusing children is a social issue first and foremost.

Yes, but the earliest adopters were Christians as well; especially given the Old Testament's rather widespread opinions on slavery....

I've already given you an article on this one that you choose to ignore because I guess you couldn't answer it. Don't worry, closing your eyes to evidence you don't like isn't limited to the religious. Atheist are just as guilty of closing their eyes and wishful thinking as any theist can be. Including you, it appears.

At least, from what I've seen. I won't claim to be a Bible master, but I get tidbits every now and again.

From what I've seen of your arguments, thus far, basic reading comprehension seems to elude your grasp. After all, you didn't even get that I have specifically said already that theism needs to be defend too, just as atheism does. Pure laziness isn't an excuse.

And yet it also says that being black is a curse. Yet another example of Biblical self-contradiction.

No it doesn't, but you're welcome to point out where it does because last I checked... that theology comes from the modern era, not the ancient era (after all, the book of Acts as a black man as being among the first baptized non Jew. You'd know this if you had bothered to read the Bible).

Again, neener neenering does you no credit - especially once you take into account the fact that atheists make no assumptions that are not logically sound to make. It's definitely more prevalent when it comes to the religious in general, than it is when it comes to atheists.

Atheist also only make up 1-5% of the population too. Theist make up almost all the rest. Naturally, I'd expect to find more silliness among theist than I should among atheist. Sadly, many atheist seem to be sold on the idea that their atheism makes them smarter. A position that is utter nonsense. Anyway, since this exist among atheist too, my point is still quite true. Reality denial is again, a social issue not limited to theism, but found among every viewpoint.

Well, I don't take it that you are a Biblical Literalist, so I won't go on that tangent, but considering my above points mostly stand (as far as I know), I don't think there's much more I can say, really. Religion may not always be the sole cause, but it certainly helps oft times.

No, your points really don't stand because they are all logical fallacies to begin with. You are aware that the stupidity of the followers is no more proof that an entire belief system is wrong than atheist doing stupid thing is proof that all of atheism is wrong, right? This is known as the 'genetic fallacy'. Something I would think a 'follower of reason' would be aware of.

[lilpixieofterror]

This is a misunderstanding. The burden of proof is tightly bound with the notion of evidence. Let's say you make the claim that there are no gods, and let's say that your claim is in fact correct. But since it's impossible for you to produce evidence of the nonexistence of anything, your claim can only effectively be countered by producing at least one datum to the contrary. Making claims of nonexistence that cannot in principle be demonstrated, doesn't make those claims false.

More laziness... sorry phank, but claims can be made in the negative or the positive. All depending on how you phrase them. To say X is wrong, is to say something else is right. If you say God does not exist (for example), than something else has to exist in its place. The atheist would say nature, so the atheist would need to prove that nature is all that exist. Since I'm sure you know that is not a proved claim, you try the burden shifting game. Attempting to remove yourself from any and all burdens and trying to shift them to somebody else. This is not only intellectually lazy, but dishonest too. You want the fun of criticizing beliefs; without all the rigor that comes with having to defend your own.

So it would make more sense to say that the burden of proof lies with the evidence or absence of evidence. Which means the the burden lies with the positive claim, not the negative claim. Because only the positive claim is amenable to evidential support.

Like I said, you want all the fun of attacking other views, but none of the rigor and honesty to put yours to the test. Laziness isn't going to save you. If God does not exist, than nature must be all that exist. This is a positive claim and thus, one that can be defended and attacked. Why do you not want your beliefs put to the test? Afraid they will fail?

I think this would be cleared up with better wording - you should more properly say "there is no evidence of any gods, and your religion is fiction pending any." It's not necessary then for you to produce nonexistent evidence to support your claim.

Sorry, but as I said before... that laziness and a claim that, in of itself, makes arguments and claims. Ignoring reality is not going to save you phank, so deal with it. Your beliefs make plenty of positive claims and thus... can be defended too.

[Jedidiah]

Since it has been widely recognized, even by atheists on TWeb, that science is not in any position to make any statement as to the existence or non existence of God. Anyone who chooses to use one half of this is only fooling himself. Most Christians do not make any claims about science being able to demonstrate the existence of God. But we also recognize that science can not demonstrate to any degree the non existence of God. That question is in principle outside the realm of science.

[pancreasman]

Yes, there are many things outside the realm of science that are of inestimable value to human culture. However, when any one of these make testable claims about the physical universe they become fair game for science.

[firstfloor]

Since it has been widely recognized, even by atheists on TWeb, that science is not in any position to make any statement as to the existence or non existence of God. Anyone who chooses to use one half of this is only fooling himself. Most Christians do not make any claims about science being able to demonstrate the existence of God. But we also recognize that science can not demonstrate to any degree the non existence of God. That question is in principle outside the realm of science.

(What is God?) is still an approachable question. Philosophers do look seriously at the logic of religious propositions about God. The empirical sciences have perhaps shifted their interest from looking for traces of God in the natural world (what you are talking about – but there is a history of scientific claims about God (below)) to how human beings perceive God in their minds. Sensus Divinitatus can be studied to a limited extent nowadays by use of brain scanning machines.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...encefaith.html

God, let’s face it, is a serious player in the world (the war in Syria; every bullet fired is accompanied by the cry of "Allahu akbar!") so we are really in a very serious struggle to get this beast under control.

[Epoetker]

No matter how intriguing or potentially educational seemingly repeated patterns and anecdotal reports of alleged supernatural experience throughout human history may have been, ALL have come up with no substantiated evidence to support the claims whatsoever.

What site are you on, what events do our luminaries specifically argue for, and where does your manifestly incompetent self get off claiming the authority to define substantianted evidence, given how utterly puerile and partisan you are when arguing for anything political?

To date ALL alleged supernatural events, upon investigation, have had natural explanations.

That is an article of faith, not a statement of evidence, as unsubstantiated and easily refutable as "Human equality is a contingent fact of history."

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for phank to demand that the burden of proof be yours, because you are the one making the positive claim that something exists.

I would say that the preponderance of evidence is for non-human super-intelligence having had a pivotal and necessary role in history at the very least. If phank wants to argue specific events, he's very welcome to discuss the Resurrection at any time, preferably with JP holding emceeing.

[Cow Poke]

So, besides spewing forth opinions on the internetzweb, what are you doing about the war in Syria?