- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillIt was a parody of the Christian religion, not a 'how to' manual on how to beat theists.Really doesn't work, because the video features a straw man atheist who is an idiot and doesn't understand the arguments.
Brilliant googlefudge.
Like, LJ's little cartoon video [b]didn't feature a strawman Christian ??[/b]
It was mocking the basic foundation of the religion by rephrasing it in obviously ridiculous terms,
and it never claimed to be anything other than that.
This is not the same as a straw man argument.
EDIT: So no, it didn't contain a straw man Christian.
EDIT2: reposting link for ease of reference.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeMildly interesting.
Really doesn't work, because the video features a straw man atheist who is an idiot and doesn't understand the arguments.
Try this instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0
And since Carl Sagan seems so impressed with Indian thought, here's a couple of videos I post in response from an Indian Dr. Ravi Zacharias.
&feature=endscreen&NR=1
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillI am not watching the totality of those videos, partly they are long, and he is boring.
Mildly interesting.
And since [b]Carl Sagan seems so impressed with Indian thought, here's a video I post in response from an Indian Dr. Ravi Zacharias.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqbFxZ-3XA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lsi6L1BFmQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1[/b]
And partly because he starts by saying things that I know are wrong and can refute
with trivial ease, I find it unlikely that watching the whole thing is going to do anything
but annoy me.
Atheism has no burden of proof because it is the absence of belief in that which is not yet
proven.
This is a short (and humorous) video that makes my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=fumAGwONaBg
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not watching the totality of those videos, partly they are long, and he is boring.
And partly because he starts by saying things that I know are wrong and can refute
with trivial ease, I find it unlikely that watching the whole thing is going to do anything
but annoy me.
Atheism has no burden of proof because it is the absence of belief in ...[text shortened]... video that makes my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=fumAGwONaBg
I am not watching the totality of those videos, partly they are long, and he is boring.
That's ok. The feeling is mutual.
And partly because he starts by saying things that I know are wrong and can refute with trivial ease, I find it unlikely that watching the whole thing is going to do anything but annoy me.
Atheism has no burden of proof because it is the absence of belief in that which is not yet proven.
I believe that early in the first video Ravi says that atheists like you, think that they do not have to come up with any answers. He says atheists like you think all they have to do is come up with questions. This is exactly what you do in saying "Oh, now no burden of proof is on the atheist."
No God exists, via the Atheist, is a truth claim. I see no reason why the atheist can excuse himself to only sit back and throw questions at the theist.
So then some of them move to another posture - "Atheism is an absence or lack of belief in God."
Great. I have a couple of stones out in my back yard who lack a belief in God. And do they ever have no burden of proof to argue.
Anyway, the author of that cartoon video can be serious as well.
And it is his shortest one. Googlefudge, you can ignore it.
&NR=1&feature=endscreen
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillI am not watching the totality of those videos, partly they are long, and he is boring.
That's ok. The feeling is mutual.
[quote]
And partly because he starts by saying things that I know are wrong and can refute with trivial ease, I find it unlikely that watching the whole thing is going to do anything but annoy me.
Athe ...[text shortened]... , you can ignore it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8XFxLqOx7s&NR=1&feature=endscreen
That's ok. The feeling is mutual.
Ok, good to get the insults in early.
I believe that early in the first video Ravi says that atheists like you, think that they do not have to come up with any answers.
He says atheists like you think all they have to do is come up with questions. This is exactly what you do in saying "Oh, now no burden of proof is on the atheist."
No God exists, via the Atheist, is a truth claim. I see no reason why the atheist can excuse himself to only sit back and throw questions at the theist.
Head... desk... impact.
STOP TELLING ME WHAT I OR OTHER ATHEISTS THINK. please for the love of your ridiculous non-existent god stop doing this.
I don't believe in the god of the bible.... Or any god...
Any god, goddess, existential or supernatural being or beings, of any kind at all.
I don't believe in any of them.
I also don't believe in the tooth fairy, jack frost, Father Christmas, Unicorns, dragons (invisible or otherwise), the Lochness monster, ghosts, spirits, Bigfoot
or floral teapots orbing Neptune.
I don't believe in these things because I have no evidence that they exist.
I don't know they don't exist because I can't prove they don't exist, (although the evidence they don't is pretty overwhelming) but the default position
must logically be to not believe in stuff for which there is not only no proof but no evidence at all of any kind.
So I don't believe in god/s until such time as someone shows some evidence for their existence or preferably can prove their existence.
This is quite simple to understand, I am not making a claim, I am simply not believing yours.
All (or virtually all) religions CLAIM their god/s is/are real and exist (and that all other religions gods don't) and expect people to believe in them
(on faith because their is no evidence).
My position, and that of atheism, is that I am not convinced by these claims because i want/need/demand proof for something before I believe in it.
Thus as you (the theist) are making the claim (that your god exists) then it is up to you to prove it.
It is the theist who has the burden of proof to show that their god exists.
Atheists don't have to prove the non-existence of anyone's god to justify not believing in them.
This has been said So many many many many many times... How many times do you have to be told what OUR position is before you stop making up
what our position is and arguing against that in a classic straw man?
Seriously watch this.
&feature=plcp&context=C2b2baUDOEgsToPDskI7P-PX7ZSiERHAO7dsfJED
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt would if theists never tried to convince anyone else that their unfounded truth claims
So why do you make so many posts in this forum?
Wouldn't it be rational for an atheist to simply ignore religion (and all forums devoted to it)?
were true, and/or never made any important decisions based on those unfounded truth
claims, or tried to kill people who don't agree with them.
Ask a stupid question....
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo you DO have a burden of proof.
It would if theists never tried to convince anyone else that their unfounded truth claims
were true, and/or never made any important decisions based on those unfounded truth
claims, or tried to kill people who don't agree with them.
Ask a stupid question....
You believe that theists behave in ways that are harmful to society. If you want to get them to change, you can't just rebut them, you need to actively provide an argument that THEISTS will find to be convincing.
Likewise, the theists also have a burden of proof (if they want to get you to change) since they need to find an argument that you will find to be convincing.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou are talking about something different.
So you DO have a burden of proof.
You believe that theists behave in ways that are harmful to society. If you want to get them to change, you can't just rebut them, you need to actively provide an argument that THEISTS will find to be convincing.
Likewise, the theists also have a burden of proof (if they want to get you to change) since they need to find an argument that you will find to be convincing.
I have a convincing (if you place any value on reason and evidence) argument for being an atheist.
And there is plenty of evidence that suggests that various specific gods don't exist, and the ability
of science to explain how an awful lot of the universe works removes the need of the god creator role.
But I have no burden of proof to justify my position.
I can (and atheists have) argued their position successfully without the benefit of science and the knowledge
we have gained over the centuries because atheist is the reasonable, and rationally justifiable position, when
you don't have evidence for the existence of god/s.
So no I do not have a burden of proof, I occupy the position you move from IF you get sufficient evidence to justify
moving from it.
Atheism is the default position, you (theists) have to justify why you have your belief, and provide evidence to
support that position, that is a burden of proof.
All atheists have to do to win the argument (from a rational standpoint) is to (reasonably) reject the 'evidence'
claims made by theists and say "case not made". (unless and until such a time as theists get actual convincing proof)
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeif you eliminated all religions - wouldn't people find something else to replace them?
It would if theists never tried to convince anyone else that their unfounded truth claims
were true, and/or never made any important decisions based on those unfounded truth
claims, or tried to kill people who don't agree with them.
Ask a stupid question....
people would turn the Free Market into a religion -- or they'd turn Government Programs into a religion -- or they'd turn Multiculturalism into a religion -- or they'd turn their country's Constitution into a religion...and they would refuse to make any compromises about these things.
wait...this scenario looks very familiar 😛
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesWell that's a cynical outlook...
if you eliminated all religions - wouldn't people find something else to replace them.
people would turn the Free Market into a religion -- or they'd turn Government Programs into a religion -- or they'd turn the Multiculturalism into a religion -- or they'd turn their country's Constitution into a religion...and they would refuse to make any compromises about these things.
wait...this scenario looks very familiar 😛
People can be intransigent about something without making it a religion.
I would argue against such positions (and do) which is why I am part of the skeptic and secular humanist movements.
If you teach people to value skepticism and humanism then a lot of the reasons for intransigence disappear.
Of course you are unlikely to get rid of all of them in all people, (or perhaps all of them in any person) but the fact that
something [bad] can't be eradicated completely isn't a reason not to reduce it.
While people drive cars there will be car accidents, we are not capable of (collectively) driving perfectly safely, so people will
fail to spot things, be looking the wrong way, get tired, accidentally hit the wrong pedal.... and that's even before you factor
in bad whether, freak road conditions, and people driving recklessly or while on drugs or drunk.
So while people drive, there will be road accidents...
This doesn't mean we try to reduce there number, or that such efforts are pointless simply because we will never reduce it to zero.
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut intransigence usually does have a "religious" quality to it.
Well that's a cynical outlook...
People can be intransigent about something without making it a religion.
I would argue against such positions (and do) which is why I am part of the skeptic and secular humanist movements.
If you teach people to value skepticism and humanism then a lot of the reasons for intransigence disappear.
Of course you ...[text shortened]... number, or that such efforts are pointless simply because we will never reduce it to zero.
For example, you have people who will believe that the Free Market will solve all problems. No matter what you do to point out the flaws of a pure Free Market, the person who believes in the Free Market god will not change their views.
Or maybe, someone will believe that Science and Technology will solve all problems.
Deep inside, people don't really want to believe that "everything is an absurdity" -- they want to believe that there's something more important than their own little individual lives.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhich people are you generalising about?
But intransigence usually does have a "religious" quality to it.
For example, you have people who will believe that the Free Market will solve all problems. No matter what you do to point out the flaws of a pure Free Market, the person who believes in the Free Market god will not change their views.
Or maybe, someone will believe that Science and Te ...[text shortened]... t to believe that there's something more important than their own little individual lives.
Surely not all people, so you must be talking about some specific people.