Evidence vs. Faith.

[shrewsbury]

I don't know how many times we have to go over this, belief and knowledge are not the same

you can believe in something without the total knowledge of it, just like an Atheist or a Muslim

once you know something it requires no belief.

sure you can use the words wrong to make it sound right such as, I know there is no god so I don't believe in god. or, I know 2 plus 2 equals four, so I believe in mathematics. both statements are incorrect.

[duane1969]

This is a terrible analogy. You are referring to HOPE, not FAITH. If you had framed it in such a way as to describe YOUR FAITH in your wife's ability to resist the temptation to gamble; that would have been a proper analogy. And as for JustAlex's faith in no God; you are again comparing a belief and a disbelief. It can't be done credibly.

You need to understand the meaning of the word faith before you begin telling me how wrong I am.

Faith, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "strong belief or trust in someone or something". So yes, the casinos want you to have faith (strong belief) that you can win (in something). And yes, faith, whether is it faith that something exist or that something does not exist, is still faith. You either have a strong belief that god exist or a strong belief that god does not exist...faith.

[dscards]

BTW, the only reason I added the defensive part, is because that's how many theists react when atheists tell them to provide evidence for the god they believe in.

This is when they will say things like "You can't prove god doesn't exists!"

That is still the most stupidest retort that any theist can use.....I'm NOT the one making the claim...YOU are.

This is incredibly bad thinking. Religious people make a claim there is a God. Atheists make a claim that there isn't. Both sides are making claims. Therefore, as you've asserted, if you make a claim you have to provide evidence. Neither side can provide satisfactory evidence to the other.

I'm not sure if you've spent much time in a courtroom (hopefully you haven't had to). However, in court, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. By making threads like this or demanding evidence from religious folk, you assume the role of the prosecution, therefore assuming the burden of proof. It's not on the person defending themselves to prove they're not guilty, it's the burden of the person making the accusation to prove that they are. You wouldn't drag someone off the street and say "Prove to me you didn't commit a crime! If you can't, you're obviously guilty!" would you? That wouldn't fly in any legal setting, because the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. You are the one making threads like this to attack religious folk, therefore, you are the prosecution and the burden of proof is on you. So, when you attack a religious person and they ask you to prove that there isn't a god, that isn't "the most stupidest retort" to quote your rather humorous grammar. It's not their job as the defense to prove anything.

If you were being attacked by a religious person for your nonbelief, they would hold the burden of proof, but that isn't the case here.

So, since you are making a claim that there isn't a God, if you 'can't explain [your] story in a satisfactory manner WITH evidence...then there is simply no reason to believe [you]."


Now, if I believed that you made threads like this simply to engage in intellectual discourse with people of varying beliefs, I'd be fine with it. However, when you constantly make redundant attacks on people simply because they believe something different than you, I have to question your motives. You've never met the vast majority of the people who respond in this section of the board. What harm does it do you if they believe in anything or nothing at all? They're not proselytizing at you, insulting you, or trying to change your beliefs in any way. Why do you feel the need to continue to have an argument we've had a thousand times on here before? You have no satisfactory evidence there isn't a God. They have no satisfactory evidence there is a God. If your only goal is to belittle and bash those who don't agree with you and try to make yourself look superior for being 'logical' and 'evidence based', well, I'm sure it gets lonely being superior to everyone else all the time.

[habsheaven]

You need to understand the meaning of the word faith before you begin telling me how wrong I am.

Faith, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "strong belief or trust in someone or something". So yes, the casinos want you to have faith (strong belief) that you can win (in something). And yes, faith, whether is it faith that something exist or that something does not exist, is still faith. You either have a strong belief that god exist or a strong belief that god does not exist...faith.

I know what "faith" is. I do not need Merriam's dictionary to point it out to me. Since you do, try looking up the word "hope". It fits your analogy a lot better. And check your definition again; "a belief in", not a disbelief in. Proper usage of words matter.

[JustAlex]

This is incredibly bad thinking. Religious people make a claim there is a God. Atheists make a claim that there isn't. Both sides are making claims.

Lol, wow.

NO.

I am an atheist and I am NOT making ANY claim whatsoever.

This is so simple to understand I have no idea how theists still don't get it....but I'm going to give you an example:

Theist: I believe god exists, how about you? (The theist is making both a claim and a question)

Atheist: No, I don't believe in god. (The atheist is answering the question he is NOT making a claim himself...)


However, this is when the atheist can challenge the Theist on his claim.

Atheist: You claim god exists, right? Please give me the evidence to that claim. (The atheist is still not making any claims, he is now demanding EVIDENCE for the original claim that the theist made about god)

Theist: I have faith in god, furthermore you can't disprove god. (The theist has refused to give any evidence and then uses a ridiculous response to turn the tables on the atheist

Atheist: No, I can't disprove god, but I'm NOT making the original claim....YOU are, you said god exists, please give me the evidence to this claim.

Theist: My "evidence" is not empirical and thus I can't show it to you.

Atheist: Then why should I believe your claim?

[habsheaven]

This is incredibly bad thinking. Religious people make a claim there is a God. Atheists make a claim that there isn't. Both sides are making claims. Therefore, as you've asserted, if you make a claim you have to provide evidence. Neither side can provide satisfactory evidence to the other.

I'm not sure if you've spent much time in a courtroom (hopefully you haven't had to). However, in court, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. By making threads like this or demanding evidence from religious folk, you assume the role of the prosecution, therefore assuming the burden of proof. It's not on the person defending themselves to prove they're not guilty, it's the burden of the person making the accusation to prove that they are. You wouldn't drag someone off the street and say "Prove to me you didn't commit a crime! If you can't, you're obviously guilty!" would you? That wouldn't fly in any legal setting, because the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. You are the one making threads like this to attack religious folk, therefore, you are the prosecution and the burden of proof is on you. So, when you attack a religious person and they ask you to prove that there isn't a god, that isn't "the most stupidest retort" to quote your rather humorous grammar. It's not their job as the defense to prove anything.

If you were being attacked by a religious person for your nonbelief, they would hold the burden of proof, but that isn't the case here.

So, since you are making a claim that there isn't a God, if you 'can't explain [your] story in a satisfactory manner WITH evidence...then there is simply no reason to believe [you]."


Now, if I believed that you made threads like this simply to engage in intellectual discourse with people of varying beliefs, I'd be fine with it. However, when you constantly make redundant attacks on people simply because they believe something different than you, I have to question your motives. You've never met the vast majority of the people who respond in this section of the board. What harm does it do you if they believe in anything or nothing at all? They're not proselytizing at you, insulting you, or trying to change your beliefs in any way. Why do you feel the need to continue to have an argument we've had a thousand times on here before? You have no satisfactory evidence there isn't a God. They have no satisfactory evidence there is a God. If your only goal is to belittle and bash those who don't agree with you and try to make yourself look superior for being 'logical' and 'evidence based', well, I'm sure it gets lonely being superior to everyone else all the time.

A negative assertion cannot be proven. A positive assertion can be, and should be. This has nothing to do with courts or prosecutions. It has to do with beliefs. Shall we accept your argument when it comes to the Tooth Fairy too.

[JustAlex]

HEY EVERYONE....do you believe in leprechauns?

NO?

OH, you have just the same amount of the "Burden of proof" as does the person saying he believes in leprechauns.

Seriously, how the hell can you guys think this makes sense?

[habsheaven]

Alex, if you cannot PROVE Leprechauns do not exist, we are OBLIGATED to accept that they just might. Apparently, that's how this works.

[shrewsbury]

I am an atheist and I am NOT making ANY claim whatsoever.

bullcrap, you are claiming theists are wrong in believing in God because it cannot be proven by empirical evidence.

when, in fact, you are doing the same thing

[dscards]

Lol, wow.

NO.

I am an atheist and I am NOT making ANY claim whatsoever.

This is so simple to understand I have no idea how theists still don't get it....but I'm going to give you an example:

Theist: I believe god exists, how about you? (The theist is making both a claim and a question)

Atheist: No, I don't believe in god. (The atheist is answering the question he is NOT making a claim himself...)


However, this is when the atheist can challenge the Theist on his claim.

Atheist: You claim god exists, right? Please give me the evidence to that claim. (The atheist is still not making any claims, he is now demanding EVIDENCE for the original claim that the theist made about god)

Theist: I have faith in god, furthermore you can't disprove god. (The theist has refused to give any evidence and then uses a ridiculous response to turn the tables on the atheist

Atheist: No, I can't disprove god, but I'm NOT making the original claim....YOU are, you said god exists, please give me the evidence to this claim.

Theist: My "evidence" is not empirical and thus I can't show it to you.

Atheist: Then why should I believe your claim?

That's not what is happening here in this thread. I have not said (nor has anyone in this thread) that there is a God. This is how this thread has gone:

Alex-Religious folk are silly and wrong for believing in God. (I paraphrased there. But, you are making a claim that beliefs of religious folks are not correct.)

Me-I don't agree with your claim that religious folk are silly and wrong for believing in God. You claim that they are wrong, right? Please give me the evidence to that claim.

Alex-They have no evidence that they're right.

Me-I can't prove that they are right, but I'm NOT making the original claim...YOU are, you said that religious folk are silly and wrong for believing there is a god. Please give me the evidence to this claim.

Alex-My evidence to support my claim that religious folk are and wrong is that they don't have evidence to prove they're not silly and not wrong.


By making this thread condemning the beliefs of religious people, you are the one making the claim. Had this thread started with someone saying "There is a God!" then the burden of proof would be on them. However, you made the initial claim that the religious are wrong. Simply stating they don't have evidence that makes them right does not make them wrong.