If atheists are so smart, why haven't they disproven the existence of God?

If atheists are so smart, why haven't they disproven the existence of God?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative
youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM
princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

wow nice thread op

>Sage
Religious people are the ones who believe there is a god so you prove to me. I don't have to come up with evidence when i'm not making any claims.

Why haven't you disproven atheism?

Because religious people cling onto their blind faith. Don't blame some of em they were raised like that and it's hard to change.

Prove to me god exists.
Le meme book does not count.

>I can't do it :(
Admit you aren't smart then.
There exists people who believe there is no God. So atheism exists.

You dropped your fedora on the way in, bud.

Because they are reasonable, rational and logical and they realize that trying to disprove the existence of things that are purported to be supernatural would be an exercise in futility, regardless of how implausible they might seem.

It's common knowledge God exists. It's up to you to prove otherwise. If you can't, you're just another idiot and what you believe isn't worth shit.

>Admit you aren't smart then.

I'm sorry poorly educated dindu, but that isn't how Epistemology works, the person/party who asserts a claim, as in "God exists", is the one required per Philosophic burden of proof to Justify said claim. You prove to me he exists and I will believe or refute your claim.

>they realize that trying to disprove the existence of things that are purported to be supernatural would be an exercise in futility
Except they have tried (and failed) numerous times.

And they keep trying. And they keep failing.

Are you kidding me? This evidence has been supplied over 2400 years ago, long before your god was even a wet dream in some scammer's mind.

Sorry but it's atheists who are making the extraordinary claim. Therefore they have to put up or (hopefully) shut the fuck up.

Okay here's my claim: hes not real because he doesn't exist. Now put up or preferably permanently shut up.

>Doesn't understand sage

Summers almost up newfag.

Where's Estonia when you need em.
The burden of proof is still upon you, whether your claim is ordinary, common knowledge or not.

I think the problem you have is that you're looking at atheists as a faction, akin to a religious group, with an anti-god mindset and a cohesive agenda. That may be be true of certain vocal antitheists. Atheism simply means a lack of faith in god, a non-believer. Creating an intolerant and aggressive strawman out of them is a weak stance and a poor reflection of your own faith.

>atheists are making the extraordinary claim.

Wew lads, you all have a great night.

"God does not exist" is an extraordinary claim

A teapot orbits the sun.

Disprove it.

Another slide thread. Report, sage & move on.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

You think your ignorance proves one doesn't?

What a fucking leaf you are

It's on all claims

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Proving_a_negative

Disprove that a teapot doesn't orbit the sun.

You´ve gone beyond autism.
Good night lads.

Fair enough. I'm a Christian myself, but this thread does not belong in Sup Forums, that's why Saged & reported.

So does god exsisting you jackass, cant you see this shit is a loop?

Nothing is proving religion false and at the same time nothing is proving it true.

Religion is literally the world's biggest and longest on-going meme

Get this shit out of here.

What's the difference. If it's far enough to be in a stable orbit, it may as well do

Teapots do in fact orbit the sun, you would have to be a moron to say otherwise

>Religion is literally the world's biggest and longest on-going meme

Then you're powerless to stop it. So stop trying

Why are you so aggressive?

I'm asking you a simple question. Can you disprove that a teapot does not orbit the sun?

You can't sage and report God my friend. One day it will come back to bite you

*prove

Is this the same retard that makes the threads with the Never Ending Story chick pic?

I'm agnostic about it. It may do, it may not

>atheists invent childish parodies because they can't disprove God
lol just pathetic

If atheists are so smart, why haven't they checked these digits?

youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM

Prove you believe in a teapot orbits the sun.

Protip: You can't.

It may do. It may not.

Very well.

So do I. I'm not sure if there is indeed a China pot floating around the sun.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. 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 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.

- Bertrand Russel

If religious people are so smart, why haven't they disproven the existence of Kabongo, my imaginary friend with a twelve foot penis?

Who said I believe in such a thing.

I am agnostic of it.

>I'm not sure

You have almost no way of knowing whether it does or doesn't. Certainty has nothing to do with it

>fiddling with semantics and not focusing on the crux of the argument

You don't even understand the argument. Don't give quotes you don't understand

Probatio diabolica. You can't disprove the existence of something, as ridiculous as it may be.
Yes, even the spaghetti monster.

You don't understand the necessities of God

Big words for someone insisting on skeptics to disprove dogmas.

It's a logical fallacy you fucking dud. And consequently,

>God exists until he is proven to not exist
Is also a fallacy.


Don't get into arguments about things you barely understand.

You read one two words on wikipedia and you think you are a fucking big shot.

It is logically impossible. And not only that, its fucking absurd for skeptics to have to disprove the thing ridiculous things dogmatists like you come up with.

You can't prove a negative retard.

Besides, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
If you're claiming there's a god then prove it or GTFO.

to prove things u need evidence it has nothing to do with being smart
taking a stance means believing so by definition atheist are believers in non existence of god. Most atheist are just indoctrinated useful idiots who think loss of proof of gods existence is proof of his non-existence and are failing to realize uselessness of their beliefs

Concentrate. One cannot prove whether God exists or not

The only rational choice is agnosticism

If christians are so smart, why haven't they disproven the existence of Odin?

You must prove negative claims as much as positive

Odin is not a necessary justification for the ability to reason, sentience, free-will and societal cohesion in a naturalistic world

>The only rational choice is agnosticism.

Yes but the only practical choice is atheism. Why out of all the pantheon of Gods that humans in their wild imaginations have conjured up throughout the ages should I choose to be skeptical on the existence of a single God much less the Christian god.

Much like the teapot, I will not basis my observations of the solar system on the possibility of a teapot floating around and search endlessly for such a teapot.

Because atheist don't exist. Only God.

I made no claims regarding my opinion on god or my belief of his existence. I just stated that the falacy is on the believer's argument, not on the disbeliever's.

That's not how it works you autist. The onus is on the person who disclaim the general belief within a paradigm.

>Odin is not a necessary justification for the ability to reason, sentience, free-will and societal cohesion in a naturalistic world

But thats wrong, the true gods are the reason everything exists

>Yes but the only practical choice is atheism.

The practical choice is theism

>Why out of all the pantheon of Gods that humans in their wild imaginations have conjured up throughout the ages should I choose to be skeptical on the existence of a single God much less the Christian god.

Because the God of Abraham is the archetypal Classically Theistic Ultimate God. The embodiment of the absolute

>Much like the teapot, I will not basis my observations of the solar system on the possibility of a teapot floating around and search endlessly for such a teapot.

God is a special case of assertion

>That's not how it works
But it is.

The definition of Norse and in general non-Classically Theistic gods cannot be that way

Flying spaghetti monster is real though.

There is no fallacy in either positions. They are both faith-based

>It's common knowledge God doesn't exist. It's up to you to prove otherwise. If you can't, you're just another idiot and what you believe isn't worth shit.

No it is not.

>Because the God of Abraham is the archetypal Classically Theistic Ultimate God. The embodiment of the absolute

This can be substantiated as non-evidence.

You have not been able to draw a single iota of evidence proving the existence of God.

Nor have I been able to draw a single iota of evidence disproving the existence of God.


Though I ought to call myself an agnostic, but I am an atheist. One does basis his world view on evidence not on evidence that has not yet appeared.

Dude look at the first picture on this page, under "burden of proof"

Because "the existence of God" is an inherently unfalsifiable concept.

The evidence you find cannot affect the truthfulness of claims

Things are either true or untrue regardless of how much evidence you currently have to support either positions

And you cannot have evidence to disprove God

*scientifically unfalsifiable

I am done with you. I cannot talk to a moron.

You have no idea what it means to make a proper argument and you have no regard for the rules of logical conversation.

There is a fallacy in claiming the existence of something without proof. There is nothing wrong with being a disbeliever until shown proof, whose burden lies on the believer.
One does not need to stay skeptical of it as then you would be skeptical of everything that might or might not exist as long as someone claims it does without proof. That's why the agnostic position is faulty and I would argue that both agnosticism and atheism are the rational positions.

>They are both faith-based
Unless you have a very shady private definition of "faith", the mere lack of belief in something that requires faith is in itself not based on faith.

You have no idea that logic is not nearly the same thing as the scientific method

You are a child. Grow up

If you indeed had a "mere lack of faith" you wouldn't be having this conversation with me

You'd be humble in your ignorance

FUN THEOLOGICAL READINGS:

POLTICAL-THEOLOGICAL TREATISE - SPINOZA
VARITIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE - JAMES
GOD'S ZEAL - SLOTERDIJK
FEAR AND TREMBLING - KIERKEGAARD
THE QURAN AND MODERNISM - HUSSAIN
THE RELIGION OF SOCIETY - LUHMANN
JESUS AND JAHWEH - BLOOM

FUN FICTIONAL READINGS:
THE BIBLE
PARADISE LOST
JOSEPH AND HIS BROTHERS - MANN
THE DIVINE COMEDY
ORLANDO FURIOSO
FAUST - GOETHE
MASTER AND MARAGARITA - BULGAKOV

>*scientifically unfalsifiable
Name one notion of falsifiability that would cover the concept of an all-powerful entity. Tell me how something that, by definition, has the ability to exist outside of any framework of human understanding can be falsified within a framework of human understanding.

>I am done with you. I cannot talk to a moron.
No idea what your problem is.

>There is a fallacy in claiming the existence of something without proof.

It's not a claim of knowledge. It's a claim of faith

>There is nothing wrong with being a disbeliever until shown proof, whose burden lies on the believer.

Being a disbeliever (believing something is false for lack of evidence) is logically wrong. Temporarily suspending belief in either way is not

>One does not need to stay skeptical of it as then you would be skeptical of everything that might or might not exist as long as someone claims it does without proof.

The agnostic position may be hard-to-impossible to put in practice but it's the only rational one

in KEK we trust!

I'm having a conversation about the falsifiability of a theoretical construct, not about the existence of God.

I mean, I'm not faulting you for resorting to stock comebacks like that, but you should at least pick some that actually apply to me and my posts.

In Christianity abrahamic religion broadly, God represents the "thing in itself"- Being, the logos, what have you. We are made by God, and we return to God.

In Germanic religion, the gods do not represent the logos, they represent powerful forces that come out of the logos, son as thunder, death, fate, etc. The "thing-in-itself" is the Wyrd- the well of Urð. It consists of the totality of natural law, including the entire cumulative past (because the past defines the parameters for the present, therefore it is part of the "law"). We come out of the Wyrd, and when we die we return to the Wyrd, and by contemplating the Wyrd we can achieve a state of enlightenment in which we understand and accept the world as it is (as it MUST be). The deities exist and play a role in the lives of individuals and small groups, but they are not the thing-in-itself.

I think Norse polytheism and Christianity, and all religion really has the same end goal- understanding of Being. In Christianity, this is achieved by understanding the creation and learning to love God. In Norse faith, by contemplating the Wyrd. In one, being is a father and creator, in the other it is a scary and mysterious abyss.

There aren't varying degrees of Atheism. You are one or you aren't.

Stop with this fucking snowflakery already.

>"So you are an atheist?"

>"What?! HOW DARE YOU ASSUME I AM AN ATHEIST JUST BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD! I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT I AM A COVERTLY IMPLICITIOUS ATHEISTIC-AGNOSTICON WITH TRANS-SOPHISTRY LEANINGS!"

Fuck that noise.

Atheists can't even prove that atheism exists, by their own standards of evidence.

NOT ONLY IS GOD UNFALSIABLE, HE NECESSARILY EXISTS BY DEFINITION ACCORDING TO ST ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, FOUND IN HIS PROSLOGION. HERE IS A LINK ATTACHED. YOU MAY NOT BELIEVE BUT IT'S FUN TO READ

princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html

...

>Name one notion of falsifiability that would cover the concept of an all-powerful entity.
>Tell me how something that, by definition, has the ability to exist outside of any framework of human understanding can be falsified within a framework of human understanding.

My bad, here is where you're right.

>Prove a negative
Why haven't christians disproven the existence of the Dagda?

It's separating concepts along logical lines. Atheism is no exception to it

In general, you cannot prove a negative. However, god could prove his existence BY ONE TINY FUCKING ACT, which of course he never has, for whatever reason.

I of course am agnostic because I have no proof either way.

>It's common knowledge God doesn't exist.
Only in the diseased mind of an atheist.

That act is called Judgement Day.

Faith has no meaning when you have direct knowledge of something

and when exactly was this act? oh yeah, in your imagination.

I will forever believe in god or jesus or santa or anything once I am shown reasonable proof. beyond that, "believing" in something because you have been promised a payoff is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.

The problem with this is that we have already disproven just about every biblical claim in the big book of lies.

Almost every single claim, possible of proving, has been proven false. And yet people still choose to believe in magic.

>Faith has no meaning when you have direct knowledge of something

christians are so fucking comical. If you had sense enough to understand the absurdity of that comment you would be smart enough to laugh at it.

I can have faith in a friend because of his life-long loyalty. Your faith in god is based on bullshit that people have told you.

Faith is knowledge in the absence of evidence, or even in light of contradictory evidence

>I can have faith in a friend because of his life-long loyalty

This is not faith. It's predictive foreknowledge

People should cool it with the "you can't prove a negative" thingie. I know it's *often* true that a negative proposition has properties that make it unprovable, but this is not a universal truth. For instance, you could prove the negative of there being no big, bad wolf standing behind you by simply observing the space behind you. You'd have to make him an invisible or incorporeal wolf in order for this not to work. The tricky thing about God (depending on the conception) is that His existence already includes many properties that make His nonexistence unprovable.

My point is, it's not that you cannot prove a negative full stop; it's that you can't prove God's nonexistence specifically.