{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/10/2013 10:24:02 PM
60
I never see atheist trying to prove God doesn't exist.
The general argument they have is "prove it" yet they don't go out of their way to disprove it. If you can't prove or disprove a universal negative, then why use "prove it" as an argument?
English
#Offtopic
-
[quote]"If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"[/quote]
-
It's impossible to prove god does or doesn't exist.
-
i actually am not either a believer or disbeliever. but both are impossible to prove anyways. I am neutral in almost every argument and that is the best stance you can take on this subject here. and just say i'm still waiting for an answer.
-
1 ответИзменено (Seggi): 4/11/2013 5:25:41 AM[quote]If you can't prove or disprove a universal negative[/quote] What does this mean? What is a 'universal negative'?
-
Burden of proof - look it up. We don't have to do shit
-
3 отв.The general consensus is that God is impossible to prove or disprove. Also, Atheists don't inherently believe that God doesn't exist. The just don't believe in God.
-
it works 2 ways: atheist: prove god exists theist: prove god doesnt exist i dont care, i am an atheist and i dont feel like proving anything whether he exists or not
-
I guess I might as well believe in every myth since we can't prove they don't exist.
-
25 отв.Изменено (Gaara444): 4/10/2013 11:23:49 PMWhy are Atheists so Damn Hell Bent on disproving the Christian/Jewish God but turn a complete blind eye to every religion that doesn't involve that specific God? You never see an Atheists try to disprove Odin or Buddha, but [i]God Forbid[/i] people have a belief in God. Most of those same Atheists don't even understand the concept of what God actually is. They just look at God like he's just a Super Human when that is not the case. A super human is a just a person bound by the rules of the universe but just on a higher plane of evolution than Humanity. The idea of God is a being who is above the rules of this universe. Imagine a pool of water, this represents the Universe and all it's rules and everything that exists within it. Now imagine a sponge floating on the top of the water, the sponge represents God. One half is inside the universe and submits itself the rules of that universe and the other half is outside the jurisdiction of that universe. And this is still using the argument that god is a being with a similar mentality of a human which some (if not all) of the five ways shows that God doesn't have to be.
-
8 отв.Because the burden of proof lies on the religious people. If someone claims that he or she is carrying an elephant around in the pocket of their pants, then who needs to prove what? It's not up to the random bystander to prove that the person making that claim does not have an elephant in its pocket. It's up to the person making the statement to back it up and prove he's right somehow. I can claim that I'm actually president Obama. For anyone to believe me, it's up to me to prove that I actually am him. Not up to others to prove that I'm not.
-
1 ответWisdom from the Quran from surah 108. Say "Oh you unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor will you worship what I worship, nor are you worshippers of what I worship, and I will not worship what you worship, nor will you be worshippers of what I worship, [b]to you is your way and to me is mine.[/b]
-
*sigh* Okay kiddies, listen up. If you're not willing to "prove" something one way or another yourself, but choose to use it as an argument, then you are in the wrong and in the process deciding to be lazy. I'm sure no one thought you could prove a notion such as gravity existed when it was first theorized, yet low and behold, it was accomplished. No one should expect this argument to be resolved in a short amount of time either. When you have such little evidence to either side, it takes longer to provide a concrete answer that is accepted by all. Yes, there is an abundance of evidence that validates evolution and I don't disagree with it, but it's possible that it was started by a being more powerful than we could imagine. I don't blindly follow the idea that it is how it happened, but I also don't rule it out as a possibility. Of course, I am also willing to wait til I die to know the truth. So unless any of you are going to start a research project to find the truth, then all arguments are null and void. And don't go blindly quoting religious texts if you aren't going to live by them word for word, because you can't pick and choose which things are right and which aren't. Sorry, that's not how "faith" works.
-
2 отв.All the athiests I know are self-centered and cannot imagine being wrong, and cannot comprehend that there is someone better at something than them. They think they are 'superior' to everything in the universe. Maybe not all Athiests are like this, but the ones I know are.
-
Изменено (Mash): 4/11/2013 6:15:15 AMThink of it this way. The only evidence that god exists is the fact that someone said he does. Therefore, when I say god doesn't exist, I am proving that he doesn't exist.
-
Well then if there is a God or gods/goddesses...all of the books, religions, myths they originated from are wrong.
-
2 отв.Can you prove that unicorns don't exist?
-
There isn't concrete evidence of a divine creator(s), Theism is based on a hypothesis that has not been proven correct. For a hypothesis to be proven accurate, it must be based on some sort of observable fact. Theists assert a hypothesis as true or accurate without providing concrete, observable facts. An Atheist is someone who assumes that since there isn't sufficient evidence support said hypothesis, there is not a god(s). In science you don't think a hypothesis is correct and then decide that that is evidence enough because a bunch of other people told you that it was correct without proving sufficient evidence to prove it correct. Think of it like this: Two people have lived in a box for their entire lives, neither of them have ever left the box. There are no doors, openings or windows. The entire box is made of the same impenetrable, opaque material. One of the two people inside the box says that there is an entire world outside the box and that one day he will be able to leave the box and become a part of this world outside the box, the other says he doesn't know that for sure because they have never seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelt anything that came from outside their box and therefore there is not much point in believing in what the other believes in.
-
You don't need to disprove something for it to be probably not real. I can't prove that there isn't an invisible leprechaun standing behind me right now, but that doesn't mean there is.
-
16 отв.We're both wrong. But you guys more for being the cause of hundreds of millions of deaths throughout history.
-
1 ответI don't ask nor want for anyone to prove it. I am happy living my life without a deity watching over me. I live in the now, not in the "what might come". If you live a life of fear that you'll upset someone down the line, and suffer for it when you die, then you're not living. If someone were to irrefutably prove the existence of a god, I wouldn't suddenly have faith in that god. I'd just think "oh, that's kind of cool, but it still doesn't affect my day-to-day life at all". If I suddenly changed who I am because a god was proven, that makes me a coward. Let me live my life without talk of god or gods. Please. Just stop. Atheists, Muslims, Christians... I've made up my mind. Now stop trying to make me change it.
-
3 отв.To first prove something, you must conduct an experiment. A [i]feasable[/i] experiment. It would be like a 2 dimensional being trying to see if there was a 3 dimensional world. His physical limitations prevent that. Theories are what they are. Just theories. However, I believe science and religion strive towards the same thing, an answer. What science does prove, religion will conform to because it's solid proof. Where science fails, faith fills the gap. We saw the Catholic church go against the heliocentric theory because the was no proof otherwise. Until there was proof. The church overreacted at that moment in time. But today, the church acknowledges that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Hell, there is a -Blam!-ing Vatican Observatory! Science waits for a proof for an answer. Religion waits for an answer to be proved. /Science vs. Religion
-
Because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If an atheist wanted to make the claim that God does not exist (most don't), then they would have to support that claim, yes.
-
Prove it You can't prove that there aren't unicorns breathing fire and dancing a unicycle under Plutos surface so it must be true! That logic is so bad it is not funny.
-
The burden of proof is not upon them. They do not have enough evidence to disprove anyway.
-
Because you can't prove nor disprove God.
-
Atheists don't try to disprove god because they think he doesn't exist in the first place. So they have nothing to disprove of.
