tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post1843126190150882418..comments2023-08-11T04:59:57.364-04:00Comments on Sacerdotus: Burden Of ProofUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-41512484190258060952014-10-27T04:35:01.684-04:002014-10-27T04:35:01.684-04:00The burden of proof lies on the theist to prove th...The burden of proof lies on the theist to prove their claim. Atheism is the default position because the default position to take in any matter is to withhold judgement. An atheist who asserts that there is no god certainly carries a burden of proof, just like all theists do. <br /><br />When the theist provides evidence, and the atheist claims that the evidence is invalid the atheist takes on a burden of proof to show that the evidence is invalid. Therefore it is enough for the atheist to show that any reasons to believe in god are invalid. It's not necessary for the atheist to disprove god. When all the evidence the theist has supplied has been refuted by the atheist, the theist can only hold on to their belief for irrational reasons.<br /><br />I agree that we must justify atheism given the strong cultural context of theism, but such a burden of justification only requires a demonstration that the evidence presented for theism is inadequate or invalid.<br /><br />Let's not get confused either, most western atheists are fairly strong atheists with regards to narrow gods such as yahweh, just negative atheists with regards to all the others.tjaarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265265802117530999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-56027737421248941212013-08-05T23:32:22.538-04:002013-08-05T23:32:22.538-04:00You've made me wait for an answer for more the...You've made me wait for an answer for more then 2 months, I'm starting to think you won't be coming with a rebuttal to these arguments.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226414132230072578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-65581495097727582302013-05-24T17:18:50.647-04:002013-05-24T17:18:50.647-04:00The default position is that you still have to cho...The default position is that you still have to choose between the two and if you decide neither of them suits your needs, you create your own group.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-52007016478530899322013-05-24T17:01:53.957-04:002013-05-24T17:01:53.957-04:00Because we haven't decided yet if a god exists...Because we haven't decided yet if a god exists or not. Though I'm fairly sure the god of the bible Isn't real. Here, I gave my self the burden of proof.<br />Why? Might you ask.<br />Because the bible claims that god is omnipotent and omniscient. <br />If your god is both of those things he could have prevented original sin but he choose not to do so.<br />In the bible story of genesis. God had placed the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and told Adam & Eve not to eat from it. If he were omniscient and omnipotent (and christians claim he's loving) he would have never placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the first place, because he knew Adam & Eve would take the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil in the first place. Thus either the god of the bible is false, or the god of the bible is true but not a loving god but rather a hating god because he set man-kind up to make this mistake fully knowing they would do it beforehand. I'd rather believe he's false. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-70324334369040756112013-05-24T13:35:42.593-04:002013-05-24T13:35:42.593-04:00How so?How so?Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-10624549141215235842013-05-24T12:39:22.443-04:002013-05-24T12:39:22.443-04:00"For example, if 99% of the people in a town ..."For example, if 99% of the people in a town are democrats and the one person who makes up the 1% is republican, then it is obvious that the 'default' position is the democratic one."<br /><br />No the 'default' position is neither side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-43097701519890452062013-01-18T13:39:25.992-05:002013-01-18T13:39:25.992-05:00Why would it "kill" you? I think you mi...Why would it "kill" you? I think you misunderstood. Atheists throw around fallacy accusations and when closely examined, they just simply did not get the idea of what they have read. What I mean with what you quoted is that our brains need data on something before we are even aware of it and can contemplate it. <br /><br />For example, we learn 123, addition etc in elementary. This is preparation for algebra and then calculus, trigonometry etc. No one can do either of these math concepts without having prior exposure of them. How can you add 2+2 when you never saw or heard of the concept of "2?" You need to know what "2" is as a symbol and have an abstract before you can work with it.<br /><br />So in order for me to disbelieve in something, I have to know that something first. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-66771736038341779052013-01-18T07:08:36.598-05:002013-01-18T07:08:36.598-05:00I'm sorry but this line.
" The mind canno...I'm sorry but this line.<br />" The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on." <br />Just about killed me. And all the other fallacies in here. Please review and rethink your articles, and do not bash others for censoring comments if you censor comments yourself. Godless Talkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798948946724487993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-2189321285139710042013-01-18T07:08:24.186-05:002013-01-18T07:08:24.186-05:00I'm sorry but this line.
" The mind canno...I'm sorry but this line.<br />" The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on." <br />Just about killed me. And all the other fallacies in here. Please review and rethink your articles, and do not bash others for censoring comments if you censor comments yourself. Godless Talkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798948946724487993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-63464299125814704682013-01-18T07:07:09.621-05:002013-01-18T07:07:09.621-05:00I'm sorry but this line.
" The mind canno...I'm sorry but this line.<br />" The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on." <br />Just about killed me. And all the other fallacies in here. Please review and rethink your articles, and do not bash others for censoring comments if you censor comments yourself. Godless Talkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798948946724487993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-38630149038491983902013-01-18T07:05:50.572-05:002013-01-18T07:05:50.572-05:00I'm sorry but this line.
" The mind canno...I'm sorry but this line.<br />" The mind cannot make any conclusions on anything without prior knowledge on whatever it is that it will be making a conclusion on." <br />Just about killed me. And all the other fallacies in here. Please review and rethink your articles, and do not bash others for censoring comments if you censor comments yourself. Godless Talkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798948946724487993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-53774530547407933122013-01-15T02:42:50.035-05:002013-01-15T02:42:50.035-05:00Again, all these designations and descriptions are...Again, all these designations and descriptions are how man has tried for centuries to understand the reality called God. These gods are not the same being in description and designation obviously, but are directed towards the One reality that is being contemplated upon. Think of it as a poem. A poem exists, it is written; however, readers will have different takes on it. The different takes does not mean there are different poems. It just means that the poem was interpreted differently. There is ONE God, different cultures have interpreted that God differently based on their experiences and how they understood creation via the senses. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-18957411584117140722013-01-14T06:15:51.660-05:002013-01-14T06:15:51.660-05:00You believe that the thousands the god names which...You believe that the thousands the god names which exist and thousands of god qualities are all part of the same being? A god which is and is not a creator? Which is and is not interested in humanity? Which does and does not send people to an afterlife? Which is and is not good? Which is and is not immortal? Omnipotent? Omniscient? No, these are not the same beings. These are a variety of supernatural beings and everyone disbelieves in most of them. If you claim the one true God is eternal, good, omniscient, omnipotent and created our world and someone claims that the being they believe is the most powerful is and does none of those things, you are defining god differently and have different beliefs about gods. <br />You cannot define their god as a god when you want to argue with atheists and then say your god is the only true one. Helen Pluckrosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-62876176886627775112013-01-13T21:57:31.246-05:002013-01-13T21:57:31.246-05:00The default position cannot be atheism merely beca...The default position cannot be atheism merely because one group might disbelieve in another's god. The concept is already there in both: God. The only difference is how they define or describe God. If my people believe God is a letter A and yours believes God is a letter C, the only difference is our interpretation of God. The common factor is that you and I believe in God. <br /><br />The thousands of god names that exist are just man's effort to define the one God. The people had the right idea, but their limited capacity to understand the Divine lead them to all kinds of conclusions regarding the aforementioned. <br /><br />This is how you solve your disbelief vs different gods issue. Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-827824285101179434.post-76965603640297541672013-01-13T17:07:45.346-05:002013-01-13T17:07:45.346-05:00But surely then, if we go on numbers, the default ...But surely then, if we go on numbers, the default system is atheism? Every single god is disbelieved in by at least twice as many people who believe in it and many of them more. Every single human disbelieves in thousands more gods than they believe in. <br /><br />This does not work anyway. Was the world flat when everyone thought it was? Was thunder an angry god when that was the majority opinion? No. <br /><br />I am an atheist and like nearly every atheist an agnostic. If an atheist says they know gods don't exist then they have the responsibility to show how they know this. If, like most of us, gods are just 30,000 of hundreds of thousands of supernatural beings for whom there is no evidence and so must be assumed not to exist for the sake of sanity, there can be no burden of proof. <br />What proof can I offer you that I disbelieve in things for which there is no evidence? I invite you to see that you also disbelieve in 99.99999% of them for the same reason and question why you think the ones you do believe in are any different. I do not require you to prove the 99.9999% of beings you disbelieve in do not exist but simply show why you make an exception. <br />Disbelief is clearly the default position unless you genuinely do believe in everything anyone has ever claimed is real. Helen Pluckrosenoreply@blogger.com