Anti-Theists and Anti-Atheists.

[*Magick* Mage]

Stalemate. lol

[Ad Bot]

[Doomonkey]

Stalemate. lol

"Strange game... the only way to win is not to play."

[Wizard]

Hey guys what'd I miss

[Doomonkey]

Wizards and mages are against my religion.

[dkamm65]

It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: ‘You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?’ I could tell you I’ve got superpowers. But I can’t go up to people saying ‘Prove I can’t fly.’ They’d go: ‘What do you mean ‘Prove you can’t fly’? Prove you can!

'Nuff said.

[Amade]

Humans don't have instincts.

...

Except for love.

First of all, if you have an "except" here it proves your point wrong. Secondly, if you think that's the only instinct humans have you're a fool: lying (yes lying is actually instinctual), gluttony, and let's not forget breathing.

Prove there is a god. lol

The existence of a being that can not be detected in any way is an annoying subject. It isn't possible to prove either way. Christianity is well-designed to be damn near undisprovable.

[dkamm65]

The existence of a being that can not be detected in any way is an annoying subject. It isn't possible to prove either way. Christianity is well-designed to be damn near undisprovable.

See my last post.

[Doomonkey]

'Nuff said.

Your argument depends on atheism to be correct for itself to be correct. If theism was correct then atheism would have been created and the burden of proof would be the other way.

Just saying.

[Amade]

Your argument depends on atheism to be correct for itself to be correct. If theism was correct then atheism would have been created and the burden of proof would be the other way.

Just saying.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

[Moybus]

The ultimate truth is that anybody who enters a religious or political argument and expects any positive outcome is quite literally insane.

Secondly, anybody who tries to put a stop to religious or political arguments and expects any positive outcome is also insane.

[Doomonkey]

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

All that quote proves is that people are easily influenced. It goes either way. Not really a counter-statement.

[dkamm65]

Your argument depends on atheism to be correct for itself to be correct. If theism was correct then atheism would have been created and the burden of proof would be the other way.

What the forget are you talking about?

Obviously something needs to be correct for it to be correct. I don't even know where you were going with that statement.

And Atheism isn't "created". Atheism is the lack of a belief. For you to say Atheism was created, you'd have to be assuming there is a god to begin with. Saying that is just as bad as the very incorrect dictionary definition of Atheism being "to deny the existence of a god or gods".

The burden of proof should remain on the believer. We don't assume Bigfoot exists without proof, do we?

[Duckmeister]

Prove there is a god. lol

Originally, I was just going to watch you all get all excited for some religion war to break out and then get disappointed when it comes to it's anti-climactic ending.  But dkamm65, you always rile me up in some way.  Stop that.

This has nothing to do with whether God exists, it's just in the way you argue (and in the way most people argue).  You cannot prove a negative statement.  Saying something like "there is no God" would only be true if you knew everything about everything in the entire universe, which is impossible.  A statement like "there are no watermelons" is seemingly easy to disprove because we have watermelons right here on Earth, easily findable at our grocery stores.  But that's missing the point.  Having to disprove a negative statement with evidence is ridiculous because negative statements assume omniscience.  Negative statements are immediately torn down because of their assumption.

It's the fallacy of the argument from ignorance, which is closely related to shifting the burden of proof, which you just did.  If I said that the inside of a watermelon is blue until the moment you cut it open, and then asked you to prove it, you wouldn't be able to, because you have to cut open a watermelon to see what color its insides are.  However, I'm shifting the burden of proof.  I'm making a positive claim (that watermelons are blue until you cut them open), and I have to prove that statement myself, I can't rely on it not being disproven.

Man, I've been doing too many logic studies recently, I can't help but correct someone when they make a fallacy.

'Nuff said.

Congrats, you just proved yourself wrong.  Mr. Gervais is saying "prove I can't fly", and you're saying "prove that there's no God".  Both are negative statements.  You're doing exactly what he's denouncing.  It also shows that Mr. Gervais doesn't have a good understanding of what he's talking about either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

EDIT:  I phrased that last paragraph entirely wrong.  Silly me.  Thanks to dkamm for pointing that out.  I'll have to think about this tomorrow, as I'm quite tired now.

[Wizard]

How about you do prove I can't fly.

[Solid]

How about you do prove I can't fly.

Can you fly?