Leave A Comment

Subscribe
Notify of
91 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bstaples

Except for the fact that i’d push him off a building in a heartbeat.

what a victim-complex.

borandi

Agreed. He’s the World’s Biggest Twat™

Dragunov

That would be what your mother houses twixt her pox-infested thighs.

Phyreblade

OH SNAP!

asymon

But religion is based on faith, not proofs! Deal with it, Ricky and stop complain.

origuy

And that’s why we win the arguments.

We only complain, when you try to shove your “Faith” down our throats.

TheLotusEater725

The burden of proof is not static. Wtf don’t people get about that?

fortyseven

Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn’t have to do anything, should the prosecutors be doing a bad enough job, you don’t even need to call witnesses.

In fact, on the merit of lacking evidence, shit doesn’t even make it to trial/hearing.

But no, God isn’t something as flawed as something manmade as the judicial process.

So let’s shift the burden to atheists who are now compelled to propose some sort of strawman defense for you to pick apart like how carbon dating is inaccurate therefore the earth is twenty thousand years old

fortyseven

It’s simple, fucking, logic

Premise 1: All living creatures require oxygen for cellular respiration
Premise 2: Plants consume CO2 to produce O2
Premise 3: Sunlight is required for photosynthesis

Really? a twenty thousand year old sun?

TheLotusEater725

What the fuck are you talking about?

origuy

Here smaller words:

air good
plants make air
plant need sun
suns take a long time to make

fracked again

Lotus is partly correct in that the burden of proof can shift, but the shifting has to do with the way a claim is stated.

That said, wait wat?

billcar50

This ^ …muchly.

fortyseven

I’d like to apologize

I got a bit -too- high yesterday

DangerousToy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I’ll just leave that here.

What do you mean its not static? The burden of proof is always on the affirmative statement in formal logic, law, statistics, science, high school debate…
Is there any case where isn’t on the ontologically positive claim?

I’m sorry but i am under no obligation to backup my claim. How dare you ask me to justify my position.

Fine. Be a prick. You know full well that I’ve written probably hundreds of pages justifying my claims and beliefs. If you can’t write a single sentence clarifying what you mean, fuck you and your imaginary god.

natedog

he rejects your non-god and substitutes his own

fortyseven

Relax, that’s just the religious way of saying “i’m too dumb to do college science”

That’s why they want you to do the proof, bro, then they go “LOL U GOT TROLLED DOING ALL DAT ARDUOUS SCIENCE/DEVIL WORK” when judgment day comes.

origuy

Spoken like a man of faith.

(BTW What’s the emote for irony?)

natedog

yo momma is ontologically positive

Tyger42

In this case, it is. You can’t prove the nonexistence of something whose only “proof” of existence is faith. It’s simply impossible. Prove to me that there’s not an invisible, intangible unicorn in the corner of the room.

origuy

FSM for the win!

Queensly

Can’t we all just get abong?

OntologicalShock

Fuck you with a thousand dicks.

Phyreblade

I take it that is a no?

origuy

Umm… No!

Nimbo

Why do atheists always sound so butthurt? So much of it comes off as a reactionary attack on the monothiests. Need some atheist attacks Buddhism I guess to balance things out, and lets say Zoroastrianism to!!

The Matrix: Rebooted

Buddhists can be atheists.

Dragunov

Buddhism is a philosophy. It has no deity.

fortyseven

Me: *Walking along*
Mormon: *Cuts in front of me* Hello sir, are you religious?
Me: I’m a buddhist
Mormon: Do you want to burn in hell?
Me: Do you want to spend the weekend in hospital?

Buddha, as they claim, “is just a rock”
He could be a rock for all I care, salvation doesn’t need to come through him, but the scriptures say anyone can attain nirvana, without any getting on your knees or 10% of your salary

Evilcritter

Can I use that, next time those well-groomed idiots attempt to corner me, with their white shirts and their man purses?

origuy

If a Buddhist or Zoroastrian attacked my lack of faith in their funny guy in the sky, I would respond in the same way I do to the knee-jerk responses of fundiots.

ian356094

Atheists are butthurt because religion violates people’s rights.

If religion didn’t violate people’s rights, then atheist wouldn’t care about it.

Corman

What an extremely stupid argument. You should feel bad.

Luke Magnifico

What an extremely stupid counter-argument. You should feel worse.

ItalianDragn

lol, by what logic do people have rights if we are all just a product of natural selection and chance?

Law of the Jungle!

The Matrix: Rebooted

The categorical imperative is one way to demonstrate humans rights without believing in a god. There’s actually many others.
Rights and Religion are separate issues, both logically and historically.

asymon

“The categorical imperative is one way to demonstrate humans rights without believing in a god.”

OK, but can you prove it?

The Matrix: Rebooted

Can I prove that a book by Immanuel Kant exist? Sure.
www.gutenberg.org/etext/5682
Go read it for yourself.

asymon

Yes, but we’re talking of imperatives now. Can you prove it? Or can you prove it’s really objective?

Srsly.

The Matrix: Rebooted

I didn’t say it was objective, I just said it required no belief in god. It’s a logical axiom, that if accepted, can be used to derive most of what’s considered to be morals and rights. It doesn’t need to proven any more that the axiom of extensionality needs to be proven.

asymon

“I didn’t say it was objective.”

But Kant said it is. An goddamnit, stop messing imperatives with axioms. Ethics it’s not math.

The Matrix: Rebooted

When it comes to morals and rights, there might not be any objective criteria. Believing in god or gods does not solve this problem. In case you haven’t noticed, theists aren’t exactly united in their moral views either.

asymon

And that’s what I’m talking about.

You (or Ricky) want scientific proofs, but stuff like religion or ethics cannot be proven. It’s all claims and beliefs.

suicydking

I find plenty of reasons to act civil without fear of spending eternity in Hell.

I’ve always thought that Religion was a silly way to get people to be moral and behave. Everything is fear based in that regard. I act out of love and kindness, and find it to be genuinely fulfilling, without any baggage attached to it.

natedog

i believe in god, but my belief is twisted such that i believe that my actions and deeds have no bearing on whether or not i go to hell, so i have reached the same conclusion as you

lol

Dragunov

You are as god made you, since all is under his control, for he is all that there is. If you are an evil bastard, that’s because god wants you to be so and for him to send you to hell would be like me picking up my laptop and putting it in a corner to punish it for having a fatal error.

Phyreblade

What, you pulling a Riddick on us?

Phyreblade

Actually, this is really dependent on how you interpret your religious text of choice. Two people can read the same text, and based on thier individual interpretation, one will go out and kill people, and the other will go out and engage in great acts of charity. So it is really a double edged sword. However I agree with you about threatening people with eternal damnation if they aren’t good. There are many reasons to be good without that. But the other side of the coin is that religious texts generally also have very good advice. There are many things… Read more »

nyoki

The early Christians were nearly torn apart because of differing opinions of what that spirit was.

Phyreblade

Yes, indeed. The early Christians were no more coherent about the nature of the spirit, God, souls, etc than Christians are today. And before the “Christians” there were a gazillion similar religions that carried a similar dogma. Today, there are a gazillion different branches of Christianity, the vast majority of them carrying differences in the various sets of beliefs the others have. Heck, I find it amazing that the Roman Catholic church is still a single entity…

nyoki

The Roman Catholic church has maintained so long because it split off early on into Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox and something in Russia as well.

fracked again

Obviously, are chances are in our favor so far with natural selection.

Morals and values are selectable as evolution acts on the level of populations and not on individuals. Altruism is a selectable feature.

That said, you are an idiot. Please stop using my oxygen.

Evilcritter

Looks like ItalianDragn didn’t learn a damn thing in the last debate on this subject. What a surprise.

nyoki

We’re only 69 comments in.

Phyreblade

“Religion” doesn’t violate peoples rights. Irrational religious zealots do. There’s a difference.

ian356094

Religion DOES violate people’s rights. If you raise a child to be a Christian child, then you are violating that child’s rights.

Phyreblade

Again, that is not religion violating the childs rights, that is the parent choosing not to allow their child to make their own decision. You cannot blame religion as a for that. That is simply poor judgment on the parents part.

Phyreblade

Correction: You cannot blame religion *as a whole* for that…

TheLotusEater725

So many butthurt atheists in this thread. Again, arguments like these really are a simple case of ” WAAAAAAH I DON’T WANT TO JUSTIFY MY BELIEF!”

xcanadian

Are you a troll or do you not understand burden of proof? The atheist argument is already proven since there is no evidence of a god. The faithful bear the onus of proving their faith since they are the ones making fantastic claims. I’m not butthurt at all over this. I’m honestly full of pity towards the faithful. The main reason anyone believes in religion is that their parents, or some other important person in their lives, told them to. It’s all brainwashing and I am generally against brainwashing. The religious cannot prove any of their wild claims so they… Read more »

fracked again

So, what you are saying is that you can fly, but are not willing to demonstrate? It would be nice if you could show evidence of a god/s/ess/es. The problem is that theism makes evidence free claims. We are not impressed and think that society should move past it.

Tyger42

Actually, Atheists justify their belief just fine: They haven’t seen any compelling reason to believe your fairy tales. What more justification is needed?

origuy

Fine, (I may be feeding the troll here.) justify yours.

amgine

yet another person wanting to shove his religion down my throat.. and yes, atheism is a religion, and its become quite preachy too.

believe whatever the hell makes you happy, just leave me the hell alone about it..

(see what i did thar?)

fracked again

My hobby is not collecting stamps. Would you like to come over and check out my collection of no stamps?

Dragunov

I fucking love not baking pies. Why don’t you do not bake pies?

xcanadian

Atheism isn’t a religion as there are no core beliefs that require faith, no deity to worship and no dogma to follow.

Do you know what religion means?

natedog

ITT: No U

Brushaway

lol, thread with the most downvotes ever?
this is proof that discussions of this sort are destructive and should not be undertaken.

General X

I am so sick and tired of this. There is no burden of proof because there is nothing to prove. You either believe or you do not. I force no one to follow my beliefs, and good luck trying to force me to believe something I do not want to. This is where the matter ends. If you are an atheist, this is your own deal. If there was definitive proof there would be no need for faith now wouldn’t it?

RSIxidor

That is fine. If you do not try to force your beliefs onto others, either through personal interaction or societal or political actions, I have no problem with you. I have a problem with all the other people who do, and there are a lot of them. I, and I imagine others in this thread, have a problem with the stereotype, and unfortunately, the stereotype is what is noticed in most groups. Because of the way our society works, we then tend to broadcast the stereotype on anyone who says they are part of a particular group. The human psyche… Read more »

Phyreblade

You have no idea what you are talking about? I dunno about all that. You sounded pretty lucid to me…

Atrocity

It annoys me that the burden of his face is on MCS.

dogsurfer

Poets have their place in these matters. “And When I Die”, Blood, Sweat, & Tears.

Swear there ain’t no heaven and I pray there ain’t no hell,
But I’ll never know by living, only my dying will tell.

lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/a/andwhenidie.shtml

Evilcritter

I love Ricky. I wonder why his Invention of Lying didn’t get picketed, since it really did show religion to be ridiculous wishful thinking.

DangerousToy

Quoting a smart guy: “I don’t see why people (theists?) have such a problem trying to conceptualize the state of not believing in an idea. It’s pretty easy. Do you believe that a teapot orbits the Sun? This question is a proposition, with either a T or F answer. Is there a teapot that orbits the Sun? This is another, different proposition. It also has a T or F answer. The logical conjunction of these two propositions gives us four possible results: 1. There is a teapot and I do believe 2. There is a teapot and I don’t believe… Read more »

Phyreblade

Interesting quote, however it is somewhat over simplified. It presumes that if you cannot prove something exists, then it does not exist. It sounds logical in theory, but is flawed in practice, since our ability to prove something exists is limited by our knowledge (or lack thereof) of said thing, and whether or not it is something we are physically capable of empirically testing for.

IE: the concluding paragraph of the quote suggests that nothing exists that cannot be empirically tested for and/or proved.

So here is the million dollar question: Is the above statement a scientifically accurate one?

DangerousToy

I don’t so much think that it’s oversimplified as it’s simply not being usefully construed. Nothing in the example insists on, or even mentions, empiric examination. There are a multitude of provable concepts in the world that don’t rely on empiric evidence. But they are, with the necessary level of understanding – provable. Science is continually updating it’s mechanism for achieving that understanding, discarding the demonstrably false and amending it’s understanding to allow for new ideas and methods. Which is why empirical analysis is only one of many ways to do so. Thus it is true that if it cannot… Read more »

nyoki

Unless you’re then suggesting that things which cannot be perceived and tested are somehow inherently true by virtue of conception?

Which is pretty much what Bishop Berkeley stated.

Phyreblade

And he might have a point, though I much prefer the school of thought that says that, until actually confirmed, said object would exist indeterminably in both states, IE existing and non-existing. Interestingly, this position presents challenges eerily similar to that of Schrodinger’s cat. Or maybe it is, in fact the same challenge.

Or we are simply in an episode of “Lost”, and need to wake up.

origuy

Schrodinger’s teapot?

Phyreblade

OK, I’ll grant you I’m not using the word “empirical” entirely correctly. However the point is that science requires either empirical evidence of something, or a high degree of corroboration from non empirical data to support it. However in both cases, we cannot always conclude that, in the absence of empirical data or corroborating evidence, that something does not exist. We can say that there is a great likelihood that it does not exist, but we cannot say with any certainty that it absolutely does not exist. The same is also true of things that are studied via non-empirical means.… Read more »

DangerousToy

It seems you’re advancing that “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” However, while absence of proof is not proof of absence, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. More formally, for a set of evidence the hypothesis most probably correct is the one most concisely describing it; so, unless you have an evidence set including some elements more concisely described by a hypothesis relying on the existence of X, the non-existence is more probably correct. Also, more formally, it’s not that “God does not exist because there is no evidence for it”, but rather “God probably does… Read more »

Phyreblade

I see what you are saying, and you are essentially correct about my basic position, though I do not think the distinction between proof, and evidence is relevant in this particular context. But at the risk of getting bogged down in the semantic differences between the usage of “Proof” vs “Evidence”, I’ll define my use of the term evidence, as I understand it. “Evidence” can be used to “prove”, but both ways, IE to both confirm or deny. eg “Fred’s failure to go to school was evidence of his lack of motivation to succeed.”. Whereas in contrast, in the absence… Read more »

origuy

The problem with simple examples is the fact that they fall apart easily.

1.) Teapots exist on Earth.
2.) The Earth orbits the sun.
Therefore ‘a teapot’ orbits the sun.

Just to throw a spanner in the works: Is your teapot THE teapot? Or are you putting your faith in a false teapot?

Neshamah

All this thread has done is flared people’s emotions without causing anyone, on either side, to alter their world view. If you believe, good for you and I hope your religious community gives you some sense of comfort and support in the harsh world we live in. If you don’t believe, then that’s great because you seek answers rather than cling to faith. Each side needs to be open minded and more empathetic to the other’s experiences, desires, and feelings while giving respect to the differences that make this dust speck worth living on. On that note, fuck y’all for… Read more »

Phyreblade

This is not entirely true. I always learn something from these discussions, and even though it may not change my fundamental beliefs, my “World View”, as it were, is always altered, just a little bit, each time I hear the argument from both sides.

Ultimately I hope one day that everyone will adopt the attitude you have described, of live and let live. I see absolutely no reason why we cannot, except for those artificially created by the eccentricities of man.

DangerousToy

For the most part, I concur.

I always enjoy being challenged by vigorous debate and re-evaluating my opinions as new positions present themselves.

I don’t expect “to win”. It’s about refining my own understanding as much as anything.