DeSepiero:


If an atheist doubts that there's God, must he prove that there's no God?

If I doubt that you own a Bugatti, must I prove to you that you don't own one?

You are confusing yourself. An atheist does not doubt that there is a God. An atheists declares there is no God or gods. That is an assertion and not an issue of doubt. To an atheist this is a fact and not just an issue of doubt.

DeSepiero:


If God wants an atheist to believe in God, God will provide evidence and convince the atheist.

Now it boils down to this. If God should give Atheists an evidence, shouldn't there be a way/method/procedure the evidence will come through so that the atheists will know for sure.

If the theist wants an atheist to believe in God, the theist will provide evidence and convince the atheist.

And they have been doing that.

the only reason why there is atheist is because some people have been over fed and they wouldn't understand what another man is going through... just a week starvation will bring an atheist back to his /her senses

DeSepiero:


If an atheist doubts that there's God, must he prove that there's no God?

If I doubt that you own a Bugatti, must I prove to you that you don't own one?

if you doubt I own a Bugatti, you are only expressing an opinion. if you know I don't own a Bugatti it is a fact you know. if you believe I do not I've a Bugatti you are taking an assertive stance and you can go out in public and shout out to the world I Don't have one.


if atheist doubt the existence of god, they can't prove his inexistence. they only feel it is highly unlikely that he exist. that does not change the fact of his existence or inexistence.

hopefulLandlord:
so one can reject their existence due to lack of evidence, right?

yes, but that does not mean he doesn't exist if he does

butterflyl1on:


You are confusing yourself. An atheist does not doubt that there is a God. An atheists declares there is no God or gods. That is an assertion and not an issue of doubt. To an atheist this is a fact and not just an issue of doubt.

I'm not confused.
Whenever you meet an atheist that knows and asserts that there's NO god, ask such for his reasons (evidence).
Whenever you meet an atheist that doubts the existence of god, convince such with your evidence if you know that god is.

DeSepiero:


I'm not confused.
Whenever you meet an atheist that knows and asserts that there's NO god, ask such for his reasons (evidence).
Whenever you meet an atheist that doubts the existence of god, convince such with your evidence if you know that god is.

an atheist cannot doubt the existence of God. An atheist knows that God does not exist.

Anyone who doubts is known as an agnostic and agnostic atheism is simply a ridiculous position to have as it makes no sense at all.

It is an oxymoron.

Gggg102:



yes, but that does not mean he doesn't exist if he does

so what seems to be your issue with atheists rejecting the god hypothesis?

They reject the god hypothesis same way you reject the Blue Space Monkeys that float around Adelbaran hypothesis


I don't see what you're getting at here

hopefulLandlord:


so what seems to be your issue with atheists rejecting the god hypothesis?

They reject the god hypothesis same way you reject the Blue Space Monkeys that float around Adelbaran hypothesis


I don't see what you're getting at here

What he is getting at is that your rejection of God or gods does not prove anything. It is simply your opinion and not a position of truth. It may be factual to you but not necessarily true in reality because by simply rejecting this means there is already something which you rejected so that is a false position that proves a positive despite your rejection.

chemystery:

In this analogy, winning 2 million naira is a proven possibility. Bayo might have seen proof of others winning 2 million naira. In this case, Bayo might have doubt but won't rule out the possibility even without john providing any evidence.

What of a case where John told Bayo that David's DVD player was just dispensing original naira notes worth up to 2 million. Here, Bayo will express doubt and will rule out every possibility until john provides and evidence. In fact, Bayo will even have more doubt if John actually didn't see it happen, instead was told by David's neighbour

language plays a delicate role here.

if Bayo rules out every possibility of it happening, it means Bayo believes it never happened and can make an affirmative statement about it not happening.

if Bayo does not believe it happened, it still leaves a possibility of that John's statement to be true.
Bayo can only demand for proof and disprove false evidence.
if John does not convince Bayo, Bayo can dismiss the claim.
although Bayo cannot claim John's statement is untrue except he changes his position from 'I don't believe it's true' to 'I believe it is not true' or 'I know it is not true'

Gggg102:



language plays a delicate role here.

if Bayo rules out every possibility of it happening, it means Bayo believes it never happened and can make an affirmative statement about it not happening.

if Bayo does not believe it happened, it still leaves a possibility of that John's statement to be true.
Bayo can only demand for proof and disprove false evidence.
if John does not convince Bayo, Bayo can dismiss the claim.
although Bayo cannot claim John's statement is untrue except he changes his position from 'I don't believe it's true' to 'I believe it is not true' or 'I know it is not true'

Guy you dey burst my kidney for here.

Thumbs up.

hopefulLandlord:


so what seems to be your issue with atheists rejecting the god hypothesis?

They reject the god hypothesis same way you reject the Blue Space Monkeys that float around Adelbaran hypothesis


I don't see what you're getting at here

my point is that you can't really argue on God's inexistence from an atheist p. o. v.

you can't assert anything if you do not believe only.

Emusan:


Now it boils down to this. If God should give Atheists an evidence, shouldn't there be a way/method/procedure the evidence will come through so that the atheists will know for sure.


And they have been doing that.

"If God should give atheists evidence..." that's gonna be a whole new argument because the nature of god comes into the question. I'm always indifferent in this case.

If God exists and is all powerful, and wants everyone to believe in it, will that be impossible?
Your query questions the nature of God.

Gggg102:



my point is that you can't really argue on God's inexistence from an atheist p. o. v.

you can't assert anything if you do not believe only.

Of course I can! just like a theist an argue his imaginary friend's existence from his own p.o.v

You're saying my rejection of god (whatever you define as that) hypothesis doesn't stop the hypothesis being true and I'm agreeing with that just like your accepting the god hypothesis doesn't stop the hypothesis being false

Replace "god" there with "Blue Space Monkeys" if you like and its still pertinent


I see no issue here or what exactly is your point?

DeSepiero:


"If God should give atheists evidence..." that's gonna be a whole new argument because the nature of god comes into the question. I'm always indifferent in this case.

If God exists and is all powerful, and wants everyone to believe in it, will that be impossible?
Your query questions the nature of God.

His query does not question the nature of God it rather shows the impossible nature of atheists when it comes to proof. Because once one says there is no God then why still seek for evidence of this God who has already been declared inexistent?

hopefulLandlord:


Of course I can! just like a theist an argue his imaginary friend's existence from his own p.o.v

You're saying my rejection of god (whatever you define as that) hypothesis doesn't stop the hypothesis being true and I'm agreeing with that just like your accepting the god hypothesis doesn't stop the hypothesis being false

Replace "god" there with "Blue Space Monkeys" if you like and its still pertinent


I see no issue here or what exactly is your point?

Just in case you did not notice, you just said that the existence of God could be possible and your rejection of God does not mean he does not exist so since this is the case all along why do you then Still try to assert that God does not exist if you actually held this position?

Double standard?

If a person continues to post wrong information after he has been corrected many times, at some point we have to assume that it is deliberate.

hopefulLandlord:


Of course I can! just like a theist an argue his imaginary friend's existence from his own p.o.v

You're saying my rejection of god (whatever you define as that) hypothesis doesn't stop the hypothesis being true and I'm agreeing with that just like your accepting the god hypothesis doesn't stop the hypothesis being false

Replace "god" there with "Blue Space Monkeys" if you like and its still pertinent


I see no issue here or what exactly is your point?

a theist can argue because to him, is position is factual. he asserts that there is god.

if an atheist had an assertive stance like 'I believe there is no god ', he can argue from his position.

but the atheist stand is 'I do not believe there is god' he can't argue from such position.

Seun:
If a person continues to post wrong information after he has been corrected many times, at some point we have to assume that it is deliberate.

Where is the wrong information?

Are you an atheist or an agnostic or the oxymoron known as an agnostic atheist?

What you call wrong information would be dependant on which of the three you are and this would explain how you view his comment.

butterflyl1on:


an atheist cannot doubt the existence of God. An atheist knows that God does not exist.

Anyone who doubts is known as an agnostic and agnostic atheism is simply a ridiculous position to have as it makes no sense at all.

It is an oxymoron.

Fine, your opinion is noted.

Gggg102:



language plays a delicate role here.

if Bayo rules out every possibility of it happening, it means Bayo believes it never happened and can make an affirmative statement about it not happening.

if Bayo does not believe it happened, it still leaves a possibility of that John's statement to be true.
Bayo can only demand for proof and disprove false evidence.
if John does not convince Bayo, Bayo can dismiss the claim.
although Bayo cannot claim John's statement is untrue except he changes his position from 'I don't believe it's true' to 'I believe it is not true' or 'I know it is not true'

I don't want to be arguing over your invented analogies from already conceived misconception.
The fact is that those who claim there are gods have no single evidence to back up their claim. No one has seen these gods or interact with them. We are only left to belief those who claimed they have were actually telling the truth. And the default position to hold when there is no evidence for any claim is the negative. If for instance I tell you there is a substance named bnmki, will your default position be that there actually exists such substance until someone proves otherwise or will it be that there is no such substance until I (the claimant) proves or convinces you there is?

butterflyl1on:


His query does not question the nature of God it rather shows the impossible nature of atheists when it comes to proof. Because once one says there is no God then why still seek for evidence of this God who has already been declared inexistent?

The nature of atheists shouldn't be impossible for God. Should it?
Now, that's a question on God's nature.

chemystery:

I don't want to be arguing over your invented analogies from already conceived misconception.
The fact is that those who claim there are gods have no single evidence to back up their claim. No one have seen these gods or interact with them. We are only left to belief those who claimed they have were actually telling the truth. And the default position to hold when there is no evidence for any claim is the negative. If for instance I tell you there is a substance named bnmki, will your default position be that there actually exists such substance until someone proves isn't or will it be that there is no such substance until I (the claimant) proves or convinces you there is?

What you have is not a default position. It is a deliberate shift. There is a difference.

A default position is not a position you take knowingly it is an position you have no control over like an automatic switch you just revert to that. This is not what atheists do.

Atheists ON THEIR OWN and IN THEIR OWN MAKING, reject the assertion that there is God so this rejection means that they Assert that there is no God.

It's not a default position so stop with the word play. It's a choice they consciously made and despite making such an assertion that there is no God, why then do they or should they still seek evidence for him?

DeSepiero:


The nature of atheists shouldn't be impossible for God. Should it?
Now, that's a question on God's nature.

The nature of atheists make themselves separate from God since God only deals with those who genuinely seek him and not those who say he is not even there to begin with so this speaks of an atheists impossible nature.

Gggg102:



a theist can argue because to him, is position is factual. he asserts that there is god.

if an atheist had an assertive stance like 'I believe there is no god ', he can argue from his position.

but the atheist stand is 'I do not believe there is god' he can't argue from such position.

This sounds like meaningless wordgames

Of course I can argue from such a position too! by countering whatever arguments is brought forward from the theist's side, isn't that what we do here? theists bring their bullsheet arguments for the existence of their imaginary friend and we counter it?

It seems to me that you're just pulling watered down solipsism

butterflyl1on:


The nature of atheists make themselves separate from God since God only deals with those who genuinely seek him and not those who say he is not even there to begin with so this speaks of an atheists impossible nature.

Well, that's your idea of God which is not to be taken as fact.

butterflyl1on:


What you have is not a default position. It is a deliberate shift. There is a difference.

A default position is not a position you take knowingly it is an position you have no control over like an automatic switch you just revert to that. This is not what atheists do.

Atheists ON THEIR OWN and IN THEIR OWN MAKING, reject the assertion that there is God so this rejection means that they Assert that there is no God.

It's not a default position so stop with the word play. It's a choice they consciously made and despite making such an assertion that there is no God, why then do they or should they still seek evidence for him?

How did you know these? Have you been an atheist before? Oh I forgot! NightWisp

"If a person continues to post wrong information after he has been corrected many times, at some point we have to assume that it is deliberate" -- Seun

chemystery:

I don't want to be arguing over your invented analogies from already conceived misconception.
The fact is that those who claim there are gods have no single evidence to back up their claim. No one has seen these gods or interact with them. We are only left to belief those who claimed they have were actually telling the truth. And the default position to hold when there is no evidence for any claim is the negative. If for instance I tell you there is a substance named bnmki, will your default position be that there actually exists such substance until someone proves otherwise or will it be that there is no such substance until I (the claimant) proves or convinces you there is?

even if all religions are scams, that in itself does not disprove god.

an argument for god existence is not limited to religion.


the atheist have no claim since they only don't believe.

you can't prove a no claim.

the atheist position if really they do not believe god's existence is that of sitting on a fence

hopefulLandlord:


This sounds like meaningless wordgames

Of course I can argue from such a position too! by countering whatever arguments is brought forward from the theist's side, isn't that what we do here? theists bring their bullsheet arguments for the existence of their imaginary friend and we counter it?

It seems to me that you're just pulling watered down solipsism

if you counter all the claims in earth, you still don't prove god's existence.

if I say on a round earth, water will be heavier than steel. will you say the earth is not round because water is not heavier than steel?

Gggg102:


if you counter all the claims in earth, you still don't prove god's existence.

Just like if you provide all the claims on earth you still don't prove god's existence

if I say on a round earth, water will be heavier than steel. will you say the earth is not round because water is not heavier than steel?

I don't see how this is germane at all

double post

This is disappointing as I had high hopes for this thread due to a short discussion I had with OP today on another thread