nnofaith: And he was inspired by the holy spirit i presume!.

as in eh, this guy mumu no be small. What has ever been invented through prayer or spirit power?

Telling someone to prove that god does not exist. Smh

Italo, how about you prove to me that the FSM does not exist?

italo:

You are so averse to the idea of a "talking donkey" but at this rate I'm beginning to think that you are a "typing donkey." What has this response got to do with my statement: "I do not believe that something has to have scientific evidenceto be true?"



I havent seen you give me evidence that God doesnt exist.

No evidence that you love your mum.

No evidence that you think before posting.

Yet you hold these to be true. No?

0 + 0 = 0 there is your scientific proof that god doesnt exist. you Bleep**g reta*d.

So you dont have to prove your claims but others do?

I dont remember claiming that FSM doesnt exist. I dont care much if it does.

Mr Troll: as in eh, this guy mumu no be small. What has ever been invented through prayer or spirit power?

Telling someone to prove that god does not exist. Smh

Italo, how about you prove to me that the FSM does not exist?

No. That should be evidence that your are mindless. For how can thoughtlessness + thoughtlessness (at the beginning of the universe = intelligence?

nnofaith: 0 + 0 = 0 there is your scientif proof that god doesnt exist. you Bleep**g reta*d.

italo: Sorry, but what is the relevance of this to the existence or non-existence of God?

The relevance is the impossibility to intelligibly define God.

First I will assume you dont know the meaning of intelligible.

You seem to think it necessarily must be related to the physical.

That is WRONG.

Kay 17:

The relevance is the impossibility to intelligibly define God.

italo: So you dont have to prove your claims but others do?

I dont remember claiming that FSM doesnt exist. I dont care much if it does.

Bravo! Not sure what more you could do..

Btw, which is more believable, FSM or yah'weh?

^^^^

When you are unable to answer me, you just clutch at any trivial thing possible.

Good srategy.

italo: So you dont have to prove your claims but others do?

I dont remember claiming that FSM doesnt exist. I dont care much if it does.

my good reetard, it is very simple. If you say your yahweh exists, simply prove it. You cannot turn logic on its head by telling the other person to prove he/she/it does not exist. By using your silly logic, we can claim the existence of anything we care to imagine, FSM for example, because the other party cannot prove its non existence. Simply put, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Daz all Italo.

Read and educate yourself.

The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.It is sometimes said that one acquires a burden of proof if one’s statement runs counter to received opinion, and it does seem that burden of proof often falls in this way. But this proposal has problems too – one being that a person can legitimately take on a burden of defending a widely-held position to those who are ignorant of it or its defense (teachers do this, for example). It may be that the best we can hope for is something like the following: in situations in which participants to a discussion are expected to take seriously the claims made by other parties, all participants bear a burden to provide support for their claims, if asked (see James Cargile’s paper ‘On the Burden of Proof’ in Philosophy 72, 1997).The concept of burden of proof in informal settings is too complicated to sort out here, but fortunately, we don’t have to, because the question of which side has the burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

Mr Troll: my good reetard, it is very simple. If you say your yahweh exists, simply prove it. You cannot turn logic on its head by telling the other person to prove he/she/it does not exist. By using your silly logic, we can claim the existence of anything we care to imagine, FSM for example, because the other party cannot prove its non existence. Simply put, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Daz all Italo.

Hehehehehehe. This is very funny. My good and proper Italo, it seems to me that it is you who have to actually educate yourself on what YOU posted. Dohohohohohoho

Mr Troll: Hehehehehehe. This is very funny. My good and proper Italo, it seems to me that it is you who have to actually educate yourself on what YOU posted. Dohohohohohoho

Lwkmd

The guy is trying to convince you that the burden of proof is not on him.....


He who makes a claim both positive or negative has to prove it........

Logicboy03:

Lwkmd

The guy is trying to convince you that the burden of proof is not on him.....


He who makes a claim both positive or negative has to prove it........

i bet he didn't even understand what his article was talking about. The evils of copy and paste. . .

Mr Troll: i bet he didn't even understand what his article was talking about. The evils of copy and paste. . .

Ah,

The old “copy and paste minus reading” technique.......it never fails to embarass dishonest fellows

Mr Troll: Hehehehehehe. This is very funny. My good and proper Italo, it seems to me that it is you who have to actually educate yourself on what YOU posted. Dohohohohohoho

Logicboy03:

Lwkmd

The guy is trying to convince you that the burden of proof is not on him.....


He who makes a claim both positive or negative has to prove it........

I'm not the smartest, but I'm not the stoopidest either (next to most of our theist friends though... well, no real need to state the obvious), yet I can't make head or tails of that nonsense he posted. Even uyi go tire. It states the obvious, $hits all over the place, and ends with

italaweawharglwhargarlble:

This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something we have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

So, even following this warped drivel, it does not actually help his case (well, nothing sensible can), so what was the point?

And why is it not even sourced? Supposedly this erudite nonsense is supposed to educate us, where from?

Logicboy03:



Ah,

The old “copy and paste minus reading” technique.......it never fails to embarass dishonest fellows

Feet up...bowl of popcorn in my lap...following...hi guys...

wiegraf:



I'm not the smartest, but I'm not the stoopidest either (next to most of our theist friends though... well, no real need to state the obvious), yet I can't make head or tails of that nonsense he posted. Even uyi go tire. It states the obvious, $hits all over the place, and ends with




So, even following this warped drivel, it does not actually help his case (well, nothing sensible can), so what was the point?

And why is it not even sourced? Supposedly this erudite nonsense is supposed to educate us, where from?

seriously eh, I laughed to no end when I read that.

texanomaly:
Feet up...bowl of popcorn in my lap...following...hi guys...

hi Tex, welcome to AA.

Back to the topic of prayer as a proof of inner doubt.

Can some please tell us the difference between prayers and special prayers? Please!

While waiting for an answer, lets lets introduce and examine another warped concept called " prayer intercession".

Before I go further on that one too, can someone please tell us what it means?

Thank you.

Mr Troll: seriously eh, I laughed to no end when I read that.


hi Tex, welcome to AA.

Hangin' out. Thanks

Ah! First you said the burden of proof is on the believer, upon reading my copy and paste, you suddenly think the burden of proof is on both believer and Atheist.

You arent as block-headed as I thought after. You still learn something every once in a blue moon.

So where is the proof for your negative claim that God doesnt exist?

Logicboy03:

Lwkmd

The guy is trying to convince you that the burden of proof is not on him.....


He who makes a claim both positive or negative has to prove it........

@ mr troll and wiegraf,

If logicboy can understand something that I cant I would commit suicide.

italo: @ mr troll and wiegraf,

If logicboy can understand something that I cant I would commit suicide.

did you understand your C&P? No oofeinse

italo: @ mr troll and wiegraf,

If logicboy can understand something that I cant I would commit suicide.

now he is suicidal!

italo: Ah! First you said the burden of proof is on the believer, upon reading my copy and paste, you suddenly think the burden of proof is on both believer and Atheist.

You arent as block-headed as I thought after. You still learn something every once in a blue moon.

So where is the proof for your negative claim that God doesnt exist?

Ah but atheism is not a claim- it is a disbelief in God. The same way you disbelieve in the toothfairy.


Imagine someone asking you to prove that fairies do not exist with all an angry tone. Is the burden of proof on you to prove the fairy's non-existence? no



However, a belief in something can be a claim.

I believe that I will eat fairy dust tomorrow-
-CLAIM; fairy dust exists.


I believe in Allah
-CLAIM; Allah exists


(both Fairy dust and Allah have to exist for the above statements of belief to make sense)



So......the burden of proof rests on you the theist not the disbeliever.



Fortnately for you, I go beyond atheism to say that Allah and Yaweh do not exist. Why? There are self-refuting contradictions. A 10-feet dwarf can not exist the same way an omniscient God who knows everything but gives freewill can not.

Where is the evidence for your claim that God doesnt exist? Simple.

Logicboy03:



Ah but atheism is not a claim- it is a disbelief in God. The same way you disbelieve in the toothfairy.


Imagine someone asking you to prove that fairies do not exist with all an angry tone. Is the burden of proof on you to prove the fairy's non-existence? no



However, a belief in something can be a claim.

I believe that I will eat fairy dust tomorrow-
-CLAIM; fairy dust exists.


I believe in Allah
-CLAIM; Allah exists


(both Fairy dust and Allah have to exist for the above statements of belief to make sense)



So......the burden of proof rests on you the theist not the disbeliever.



Fortnately for you, I go beyond atheism to say that Allah and Yaweh do not exist. Why? There are self-refuting contradictions. A 10-feet dwarf can not exist the same way an omniscient God who knows everything but gives freewill can not.

italo: Where is the evidence for your claim that God doesnt exist? Simple.

you need to humble yourself and enter the atheist spirit. then god will unreveal himself.

italo: Where is the evidence for your claim that God doesnt exist? Simple.

What is god?. . .Tell us what god is, tell us its attributes and show us how it exist, once you do that you will be provided with evidence to show that it doesn't exist. . .insisting that god exist without being able to provide any evidence for it is shameful, no?. . .

If that is your evidence for God's non existence, why cant we tell you to humble yourself to God and you will find him...as evidence of his existence.

nnofaith: you need to humble yourself and enter the atheist spirit. then god will unreveal himself.

If you do not know something and/or its attributes...it is daft to assert that it doesnt exist. Insisting that God doesnt exist without even knowing his attributes or being able to prove it is madness. No?

mazaje:

What is god?. . .Tell us what god is, tell us its attributes and show us how it exist, once you do that you will be provided with evidence to show that it doesn't exist. . .insisting that god exist without being able to provide any evidence for it is shameful, no?. . .

italo: Where is the evidence for your claim that God doesnt exist? Simple.

Ok.
The evidence is very very clear. We have not seen him.
No two or more people have ever confirmed seeing him at once.

No visual or audio recording has ever been made of him.
Besides ancient myths, there is no historical or scientific evidence for the existence of such a being.
Even the existence UfOs have a wider and more credible scientific acceptance than god, unless , of course, god = UFO.

All theories relating to god, such as the 7-day creation, etc have been scientifically debunked.
If god created mankind, we still waiting for first contact( I and i dont mean in dreams or visions) with him universally.

So, there you have your proof that god does not exist.

Now, in order for you to debunk that, you will now have to prove that he exists by pointing him out to all.
And are not interested in looking inside your head to find god. We want real proof that we can see and touch.

Are you ok now?

That you have not seen something is NEVER proof that it doesnt exist.

I believe thinking humans can agree on that point.

plaetton:

Ok.
The evidence is very very clear. We have not seen him.
No two or more people have ever confirmed seeing him at once.

No visual or audio recording has ever been made of him.
Besides ancient myths, there is no historical or scientific evidence for the existence of such a being.
Even the existence UfOs have a wider and more credible scientific acceptance than god, unless , of course, god = UFO.

All theories relating to god, such as the 7-day creation, etc have been scientifically debunked.
If god created mankind, we still waiting for first contact( I and i dont mean in dreams or visions) with him universally.

So, there you have your proof that god does not exist.

Now, in order for you to debunk that, you will now have to prove that he exists by pointing him out to all.
And are not interested in looking inside your head to find god. We want real proof that we can see and touch.

Are you ok now?

italo: If you do not know something and/or its attributes...it is daft to assert that it doesnt exist. Insisting that God doesnt exist without even knowing his attributes or being able to prove it is madness. No?

Nope, if you tell me that there is an invisible pig flying round me and responsible for protecting me, you will have to show me evidence that there is indeed a pig flying around me and how exactly the pig protects me from harm, else your asserting will remain foolish and will be discarded. . .Tell us about your god and its attributes, so far the only evidence for your god that you have attempted to provide is that you believe in him. . .isn't that foolish?. .