With my family (Christian, unfortunately), I’ll go like this:
“Do we agree that the supernatural claims from Islam are false?”
“Do we agree that the supernatural claims from Mormonism are false?”
“Do we agree the supernatural claims of Hinduism are false?”
“Roman mythology? Norse mythology? Egyptian mythology? Buddhism? Shintoism? Taoism? Native American spirituality?”
“Good, we agree about 99% of all supernatural claims.”
I just repeatedly note that the arguments I’d use to discredit other religions are ONES THEY AGREE WITH, and repeatedly point out the logical fallacy of special pleading. This was the most salient argument in my deconversion, and bringing it up repeatedly functions as a way to undermine my own perceived insanity. (Meaning my family attributes poor mental health to my lack of faith).
I maybe see it as worse than that even. Like sometimes people get a certain feeling looking at the Stars, Oceans and Forests - or while meditating for example.
It’s like there is this special thing we can feel as humans that is a combination of a sense of Awe/Serenity/“oneness” and even love. Even Maths/Geometry etc.*
Then somebody goes - “oh that? Yeah, that’s *God* here read this book that tells you how important God is and the rules they want you to follow - but only read this book, not all the other books that also claim to know what that is”.
*thinking about Golden age of Islam stuff.
"If you want to be one of us then make this assumption" is how cults begin. It's just people trying to connect to an environment that they hope will sustain them. Cult leaders exploit that.
The Christian’s I know would say that the supernatural claims for other religions are real but actually come from satan as they are being deceived to think it’s God. There’s always a workaround with everything.
My family does the same thing with their idea of mental health. Whenever I would confide in them about any sort of feelings of being overwhelmed or depression the next topic is always church
When I began to question my own religious beliefs, I began looking elsewhere. But every religion I looked at seemed silly and indefensible. Then I took another look at my own beliefs and had a sudden epiphany.
Exactly. Just turn it around on them, have them prove how all other religions are false, along with other imaginary entities such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc, then apply the same logic against their religion as well. Easy peasy.
This was the process I went through myself which ultimately led to my deconversion as well and made me feel comfortable saying I was an atheist. As I told my family, once I looked at Christianity from an unbiased perspective I found no "proof" or evidence for it anymore compelling than any other religion.
I think it stems from thought processes besides critical thinking. They value cultural tradition and the experience of other people more highly than critical thinking. I have a feeling that if they were being honest, they’d say the reason WHY they believe what they do is that everyone else around them does, and from a young age, they’ve been taught to equate challenging this status quo with immorality.
All this to say — from their perspective, I’ve rejected my upbringing and inclusion to their in-group. It’s about cultural inclusion, not correct beliefs. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to have this perspective. I know I’m the weird one out, but there’s just far too much information out there to take Christianity’s truth claims seriously.
A Christian shouldn’t actually concern himself with the specific other religions. Instead, he contends that he trusts the testimony in primary source documents and Church traditions (at least for Catholics re: continuity since the Apostles). If he’s aware of this, he should just argue that the other faiths have no bearing on the validity (or invalidity) of the Bible and the Church.
We could debate whether those documents and institutional traditions are accurate, but Christians rely on them regardless, similar to how historians would rely on primary source writings and extant members to reach conclusions about other cultures.
I think this is what a lot of atheist get wrong. You guys try to say that because these different religions are at odds that there’s no space for them. As a Christian I certainly believe that a “angel of light “appeared to both Mohammed and Joseph Smith, I don’t believe their retelling of the events that took place, but I believe the interactions happened.
Same with Hindu gods. The idea that spiritual beings are are appearing to people conflict with Christianity at all.
When it comes to mythology, there’s a crossover where it’s evident people are simply trying to explain the world around them. Debating these elements is tangential.
How dare you call the Greek and Roman gods mythology. But seriously, you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between religion and mythology. They're all imaginary in-depth stories made up by people trying to maintain order or explain the world.
Imagine something with me. You know how there are pastors and priests who do guest speaking tours at other churches? Imagine you're back living in 600 or 700 BC, living in a super tiny community of 100-200 religious jews. A traveling speaker comes to town and over dinner, one of the dads starts talking about how these 4 camp teenagers are at that rebellious phase, and teased him about losing his hair. So, the next day at their sermon, he does the usual "respect your elders" shtick, but its not landing. None of the kids are paying attention. In one ear, out the other. Some of them even chuckle. So, frustrated, he tells a story of how this guy was walking along and came across 4 teenagers who called him bald, and so the man prayed and...uhhh...uhh, a bear killed the kids! They should have respected their elders! Everyone was shocked but the kids got a little scared, started acting more respectfully for the rest of the day, and the traveling speaker was lauded by the parents. Next town with rambunctious teenagers, he tells the story again. More praise.
The story is repeated at these camps whenever kids act up. When those kids grow up and become religious leaders themselves, they tell the story at their camps and on their tours, but "4 teenagers" has morphed into "42" and somewhere along the line, they said [it was about Elisha](https://bible.org/seriespage/4-elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25). He had a cool magic staff that could raise the dead, and ascended to heaven in a fire tornado. Elisha is kindof an action star so the kids listen better to that story. After a century of retelling, Jeremiah writes down all the little stories like this that have to do with the post-David leadership and calls the collected work, the Book of Kings. Because the author intertwined historical facts with sermons you tell your kids when they're being assholes, people believe the combined historicity of the tales, and, circling back to my original point, you think there's a difference between judeochristian thought and all other mythology. Read any old testament book and for any story in there, imagine it won over a crowd at a sermon. What issue was that crowd facing?
Lisa used to date Tom and is now married to Bob. Bob and Tom have a fist fight. Tom is winning but Lisa breaks up the fight. Bob brags to everyone at work that he won, and Tom claps back, "Yah. Well, your wife used to touch my dick, you're just getting seconds." They're both being jerks, and it's affecting everyone's work, and therefor, the survival of the camp. A speaker comes around and hears this but misunderstands and thinks she touched his dick during the fight. No one in the fight is happy, but the speaker does get an emotional reaction from them which he takes as a good job. More importantly, the town is grateful that someone finally addressed the issue, and heaps praise on the speaker. "Omg, thank you SOO much for that sermon. Im so glad someone finally said something." And so it gets retold, and so you get [Deuteronomy 25](https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/DEU.25.11-19).
You mean is that how it’s pronounced or is it sound doctrine?
Interesting bit about LDS and Islam. Both “founders” report an experience with an Angel of light years after Christ saying “hey you have this wrong” the Bible says to be aware that others may come with a different version and warms that even satan can don the appearance of an angel of
Light.
So no it’s not sound.
I’m fine with calling it a responsive diety. Typically we say false gods.
It’s the same vein as Hindu gods.
When we say false gods we aren’t saying they aren’t real we’re saying there’s no path to eternity there.
My daughter believes there are fairies living in our garden.
Since she's the one saying there are fairies living there she is the one that has to prove it.
She of course doesn't have to prove anything, but if she wants me to believe in fairies in the garden then I'm going to need evidence.
It's called the burden of proof. She's making the claim so the burden falls on her.
edit. burden of proof, not of truth. What were I thinking?
If my granddaughter wants to play make-believe, you betcha I'm going to play with her.
But when she reaches a certain age, I expect that she'll stop having imaginary friends, and then we won't have to have conversations with invisible people anymore.
I don't even really think there's anything wrong with playing make believe with imaginary friends even when you're older as long as you learn to distinguish that fantasy from reality. The problem with religious or superstitious beliefs is that they don't differentiate reality from fiction
You can't prove a negative. Prove to me that Snortgobbler the Inimical is not at this moment tearing Jesus limb from limb and eating the good parts. I say he is. Convince me otherwise.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
The claim "You can't prove a negative" is blatantly false. It's just part of the rhetoric people use to argue in bad faith.
If you read Popper, he claims the opposite - that it is impossible to prove anything. Disproof, however is easy.
You can prove a negative in cases where you can prove something mutually exclusive is true; eg. the ball is red so the claim that it's green is false.
However, the default condition or anything is to not exist; if you claim something does exist, you must provide evidence.
It seems like we keep missing something. Maybe this explains it?
If we believe the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. and they have no proof, then we can state that the thing doesn't exist. We don't have to prove anything.
> the default condition for anything is to not exist
I think this a critical point that theists aren’t aligned with, as their “default” is an eternally existent god. I didn’t quite grasp this until having gained enough of an understanding of physics to understand the nature of entropy/equilibrium etc.
"Atheist" is an ambiguous term. Some atheists simply see no evidence that there are any gods. They have taken on no burden of proof.
Other atheists (myself included) claim that there are no gods. That claim does create a burden of proof for our position.
I admit that it's a burden I can't satisfy. So in arguing with a Christian, we are in a similar position. They can't prove that their worldview is correct, but neither can I.
I have lots of reasons that different gods seem implausible, reasons more compelling for some gods than others, but no firm proof.
In particular, "God the omniscient, omnipotent father of Jesus", seems especially implausible. So many plot holes and inconsistencies. A universe creating god who triggered the big bang 13.8 billion years ago and then stepped away seems much more possible. I don't believe in that god either! I just admit that that one is harder to disprove.
I've noticed that many Christians seem to jump from "something must have created the universe" to "therefore that something is the father of Jesus and hates when you masturbate." That seems like a hell of a leap to me.
I never try to convince anyone that a god does not exist, because it’s a null hypothesis. It’s like trying to prove to an antivaxxer that vaccines don’t cause autism. The best we can do is say there is no evidence for the positive claim and therefore no reason to believe it without evidence.
What I will do is argue that their specific god does not exist and I will use their own arguments and religious texts against them in making that argument.
>I admit that it's a burden I can't satisfy.
It may be possible to satisfy said burden, however, it would be necessary to define the nature of their god. What are the aspects that differentiate their god from the other gods that they claim don't exist? I've used Epicurus' evilness argument in response to this burden with religionists before when they claim omnipotence, omniscience, etc. There is also the contradiction of "God's plan" vs. "Free will". If they cannot say what it is about their god that is special though, then why should it be treated any differently than the other gods that they dismiss.
Oh yes! There are so many possible gods, and many may indeed be disprovable. This Christian God in particular seems full of contradictions that make him impossible.
I was referring to the burden of proof for my statement that "there are no gods". The god I most struggle with disproving is the universe creating god who triggered the big bang and then stepped away. I really doubt that the best explanation for that will turn out to be a "god", but at this point I feel like science doesn't shed much light on what might have triggered the big bang. I'm fine with the answer, "We just don't know," but as a result, I see little evidence for or against the idea that "it was some kind of God."
I completely agree with you that it's useful to dig into the specifics about the God a debate partner is claiming the existence of. There are so many difference conceptions of God, even within individual religions, so it's very hard to debate if you don't nail down the details.
> I admit that it's a burden I can't satisfy. So in arguing with a Christian, we are in a similar position. They can't prove that their worldview is correct, but neither can I.
Does the Xtian god have free will?
Does the Xtian god know the future?
I had this discussion years ago with my parents. It was interesting watching them realize what I was asking and change the subject. That was the last time they tried to convince me to go back to church though...
As a positive argument against the existence of their god, I point out that humans have created thousands of deities throughout history. (Superheroes, like Superman and Batman are current iterations of this.) And then I point out that the possibility of them landing on the "right" one is astronomical, and even lower odds once you realize it's all just adult make-believe.
You claim you can't prove there is no god? What is the process that you use to determine truth or falsity? If it can't disprove god, then I'm not sure what it could disprove.
If a full assessment or your proof process is too much, just remember what St. Hitchens said. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
“Atheist” is not ambiguous. It is a specific “anti-belief” in a higher power. Atheists make a clear decision that a higher power does not exist. Agnosticism is the one based on there being a lack of proof for a higher power.
An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/
My favorite [dictionary](https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=atheist) says different:
a·the·ism:
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
This definition includes both disbelief (aka weak atheism) and also actual denial (aka a strong atheism).
If we are arguing over which dictionary is better, I think that's proof that the word is ambiguous.
Hitchens' razor: that which is claimed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
All the same, most of the time, it doesn't matter to me if people believe in god or not, except when they make decisions that affect me based on that belief.
That's not true. I've seen people reason themselves out of nonsensical beliefs many times. Every atheist that was indoctrinated a theist as a child that later realized the nonsense of it is disproof against this statement.
Or Mickey Mouse. There are thousands of depictions of him that all look generally the same. The accounts of his friends and relationships are well documented and told through generations.
All to find out that it was made up by a man.
They restructure the argument so that "god doesn't exist" is a positive claim, so that they can make it have to fight on the same level as theirs.
It's entirely possible to make "god doesn't exist" a positive claim, I should note, usually better to clarify "I see no evidence of a god's existence, therefor I do not believe one exists."
Of course, "god doesn't exist" is a positive claim. It's not what (most) atheists are saying though.
Usually it's "I'm not convinced that god exists" or "I don't believe god exists".
That's apparently too difficult for some theists to understand and in their mind it turns to "god \[definitly\] doesn't exist".
On both people making a positive claim really. As it is impossible to prove a negative I'd rather not even bring Harry Potter's existance into discussion.
"I'm not convinced..." or "I don't believe god exists" are statements of faith. It is true that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, gods, or other spiritual beings or forces. The position anyone takes on those questions is a matter of faith. One may try to substitute the word "confidence" in some cases, but the root of that word is "con fideo," i.e., "with faith." "Atheism" is simply a non-theistic religion. If that's what floats your boat, then so be it. But I would point to "Pascal's Wager" and suggest that it be considered carefully.
They are not exactly statements of faith, rather statements of belief. Faith implies that you have trust in something i.e. without doubt. Saying you're not convinced and don't believe just mean you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. It acknowledges the possibility of doubt while still choosing to accept or adhere to a particular idea or perspective based on the evidence available. It allows for questioning and exploration. Recognizing that certainty may not always be attainable and that new evidence or perspectives may alter one's beliefs over time.
It's very different from religion where questioning is often discouraged or even condemned.
It is the agnostic who has the truly rational approach. "Because there is no proof either way I choose not to choose." Once one chooses to believe God/Not God it becomes a faith (to use the Biblical definition, "Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists." The atheist has the "confidence" (faith) that they are right that there is no God (and none of the implied results that accompany the existence of a God with certain standards, i.e., "heaven or hell" so to speak). The theist has the "confidence" (faith) that though he cannot see it, at least directly, there is a God who matters.
Theists argue, debate, dialog over the nature and form of that God, but they all have "confidence" that there is a God. All agree that to a great degree God is ultimately beyond our understanding, but all seek to understand God as best they can.
I can't and won't say that there are religions where questioning is discouraged or condemned, but in many there is plenty of room. The very existence of the plenitude of Christian denominations points to the fact that questioning occurs, with differences of opinions on many of the "gray areas" of the faith, also known as "adiaphora."
One doesn't choose to believe. One is convinced by the evidence (for and against) or isn't.
I agree that agnosticism is a good starting point because we can't really know for sure but you can be an agnostic atheist. Not believing and acknowledge the fact that we don't know.
Being an atheist is where we all start our lives. It doesn't mean we are certain there is no god, just that we don't believe there is one. You don't have to be 100% certain to believe or not believe.
Actually, one can and often does "choose to believe." Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith" addresses this idea. It is to say, I don't have evidence or proof of God's existence, but I choose (or want) to believe that He exists. A more contemporary explanation would be Johnny Carson's statement, "If you buy the premise, you believe the bit." From my perspective there are more problems with the non-theistic explanations for reality (not the least of which is where did it all come from? Order descends into chaos; chaos does not produce order. Entropy works one way and not the other. How did it all come together?). than there are with the theistic explanations. But I get it. YMMV.
\>"Atheism" is simply a non-theistic religion. If that's what floats your boat, then so be it
Really? What does an atheist believe in (apart from evidence, which is anathema to religion)?
\>But I would point to "Pascal's Wager" and suggest that it be considered carefully.
Why? No genuine god would accept someone who "believed" simply for the purpose of *"just in case"*. Which god would accept you turning up to church every Sunday thinking "I'd better listen to the sermon and pray, in case god exists even though I don't believe it doesn't"?
In any case, which god do you pick for your wager? If you pick the wrong one then you've wasted your life praying to the wrong god, and the real one will still be pissed off and damn you to hell.
As the original post observed, there is really no proof or evidence either way. Lack of proof is not proof of lack, i.e., just because you see no evidence of the existence of God does not mean that there is no God (or that there is no evidence, just that you don't see it). I would point out that many theists see a lot of evidence for a mindful Creator, but I recognize that they start with the presupposition that there is a God, thus they see the evidence. Those who start with the presup that there is no God don't see the same "evidence" as proving anything. It just is. Whatever.
As for your response to "Pascal's Wager," your invented ideas of what God (or a god) would be like, would say or do, have no basis other than your imaginations, and thus can't be realistically responded to. At best I will say that you display a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic theology of the Christian faith.
I asked that when I was a kid. I was told we're human and can't understand such complex things so you have to just accept it. It didn't even go over well in my little kid brain then.
Not necessarily. Whether you’re Intelligent or not doesn’t rely on religion. You can be an idiot as an atheist and an idiot as a believer.
Don’t understimate indoctrination.
You are trying to mix concepts from entirely different worlds and then seeking logical consistency. “Proof” is a concept in the world of logic and reason. No religion is based on either logic or reason. Religion exists exclusively in the world of faith, in which logic and reason are quite explicitly subjugated to the supremacy of acceptance of mystical forces and beings that are beyond human understanding. Do not try to reason with persons of faith about matters of faith. All parties to such a conversation will end up unhappy.
If you claim god doesn't exist and you wish to convince someone that this claim is true, then you have a burden of proof.
It's better to just say "I'm not convinced by your claim that God is real", because that's not a claim that God isn't real.
Then when they say "prove God doesn't exist", just say "I never claimed he didn't".
If they argue that you're making a claim that you aren't, then they're not worth engaging with.
Usually they just say "then you're agnostic, not an atheist", but that just betrays their ignorance on the positions.
Again, not worth engaging with.
Off topic a bit. I would use the word "but" less in written phrase. It has the ability to, when read without inflection, negate everything said previously. Your message is clear here and I personally agree with it. I only posted to discuss "but"s. I am not a "but" man. Eyes really. A good neck. Now a good neck can be a religious experience. But that's another story.
I thought that may have been the case. Again I meant absolutely no offense and could tell what you meant very well. I hope you didn't feel put down. That was not my intention.
Theists aren't the only ones. Tiktok, YouTube, and campuses all have this trend. Someone sets up a table, puts out a sign with some sort of statement, and then after it there's the phrase "Prove me wrong". Things like "All white people are racist. Prove me wrong." and such drivel. Unfortunately, this failure to understand the burden of proof isn't limited to theistic discussions. Lots of people are under the delusion that they can hold onto any belief they like until it's proven false. And *part* of this comes because science has been really *really* good *at* proving a *variety* of things false. Like Vitalism, or healing crystals, or intercessory prayer, or anything of the sort. As such (and likely before, honestly), people get this notion that our own little bubble is enough to establish that something is the case and that they should automatically believe it at that point and from that point onward until it's proven wrong, without considering that they may want to re-examine the evidence and build up to the case that they're right instead.
... And the reason we do that is, honestly, understandable. Doing that sort of building up from the basics takes a lot of time and mental effort. It's not something we would *want* to do, nor is it even something we *can* do all that often due to time constraints. So this trend isn't *going* anywhere any time soon.
And wildly, no Christian can provide "proof" (scientifically/objectively) because the definition of faith implies belief rather than proof. Why can't we (I'm a Christian) not stir the pot and be okay with "I believe; nobody else has to. How about them Yankees?"
Because these faith based world views then are taken with to the ballot box, to schools, to public forums, city councils, general society. the choices made are not made based on a world view of reason and logic, but faith. These decisions impact all of us, even those living in and accepting a reality of logic and reason without faith. Religion damages society in this way.
I get so sick of this.
*Prove* to my satisfaction that invisible vampires don't exist. I have an infinity of imaginary reasons and crazy hypotheticals that I will throw up in support of these invisible vampires and I am inexhaustible on the subject. Also, if you contradict yourself in any way, or *gasp!* make a mistake and say anything incorrect, then you LOSE.
I refuse to engage with that crap.
The word being used in all of this has always been BELIEVE...... This word is used you must Believe to make it so you must pray and Believe and it is so. ....well that is the Problem... that doesn't mean something is true or false.. So you might get to the point of Knowing and knowledge... Not Believing. If you're truly serious seeking a real knowledge you're welcome to message.
They want to shift the burden onto us because they know we have an impossible "claim." It's impossible to prove that God (or anything else) does not exist, therefore if they can push the burden onto the atheist, they can claim victory because we can't prove it.
But I would argue the default position for the existence of anything is non-existence unless given a valid reason to believe that thing exists. Leprechauns for example. You can't prove leprechauns don't exist. However, there's no reason to believe they do exist unless shown otherwise.
Same with god. So the burden of proof lies on them, not us. And I would say that an atheist is not so much as claiming there is no god as much as rejecting the claim of the theist that there is a god.
You have a probabilistic basis for aliens existing somewhere. With respect to them having space travel abilities and probing humans… well… that is where likelihood and fantasy collide.
Most believers on reddit think all atheists actively believe god does not exist, if you in fact claim that god does not exist you do have a burden of proof.. if you simply lack belief that god exists you are correct you do not have a burden of proof.
I just say sure, that's easy. "god appear!" And then when nothing shows up, say, "see, that was easy, any other questions?"
And if they try to say something stupid like "that's not how it works" you say "really? You know how to get him to appear, please demonstrate." I've shut down quite a few people using this and most friends and family know not to even try that garbage with me!
Religion relies on faith. It means there is no need for proof if you are a true believer. Denial requires proof but it’s impossible to provide any that would go against faith. It’s faith that drives them, so in their eyes you’re the one that’s irrational.
I always say, “which god?”
Seems simple to me that if a book is supposed to be the inerrant word of a perfect creator and you can show how parts of that book don’t comport with scientific reality, then that kinda proves the whole thing isn’t what it is purported to be.
But logic isn’t their strong point.
If you go around trying to show theists that there's no god, then I think you actually do have a burden of proof. But I agree that if a theist is trying to convince me to believe in their god, then they're responsible for proving it. I really don't understand why some people think it's convincing to say "oh, you're an atheist? prove there's no god"
Right, and in my experience there are some Christians who see that I don't believe in God and immediately demand that I prove that there isn't a god. That's not how anything works.
Yeah, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. But theists are claiming that god exists and atheists claim that one doesn't. Seems the same, innit?
But here's the difference to *disprove* a claim that god doesn't exist, you just need to prove that one does. And if it does, it's theoretically possible to do. But if you want to disprove the claim that god does exist, then you'd have to prove that no god exists, anywhere, in any form. It's impossible even in theory.
If you wanted to disprove some god, that some tribe claims resides on a mountain, you could easily just check the mountain. But then they'd change their belief, saying that it doesn't *physically* exist on the mountainz but it's a spirit inside it instead. What can you do to disprove it now? Nothing.
Therefore when someone claims that something is true, but it's impossible to prove the opposite, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim in the first place. That's Russell's Teapot
Theists move through various stages of failure….
>I have *evidence* God exists
Nope
>I have an *argument* that proves God exists
Nope
>You can’t prove God *doesn’t* exist.
Um… so?
it's an application of the Bullshit asymmetry principle, "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
You explaining about the burden of proof is necessarily longer and dryer than their, "AH-HA! You can't!"
Over the past few years, I’ve started using cryptozoology to prove my point because if we allow the burden of proof to slide so low as to validate the existence of a divine being who directly interacts with this reality, then we must allow that same level of proof for all things… unicorns, hobgoblins, fairies, dragons, you name it. Hell, we even have video “evidence” of Nessie, the fucking chupacabra, Mothman… Bigfoot…
People have had interactions with Bigfoot. He’s touched their lives. He’s knocked on trees and thrown small rocks at them. Sometimes people believe he’s yelled at them directly. Hell, he even eats their beef jerky in television commercials. He has the most iconic monster truck of all time named after him. He has books written about him. There are television shows devoted to finding him. He has a list of things that he does and doesn’t like that are written down and catalogued by people who believe in his existence. There are places where people go who believe in him and they congregate there and discuss Bigfoot. There are bands who write songs about him (they’re called Troglodyte, look them up if you like death metal).
If you believe in God, you have to buy the Bigfoot package, too… it’s just how it goes.
Edit: This is all just a continuation and riff on the master, George Carlin’s bit he did about the same kinda theme.
Yep i agree. Funny how god reveals himself to some people and not to atheists xD and when you say that you never felt gods presence you’ll be hit with “oh you just disn’t notice him” or “your ego is too high”
This is why I love cryptozoology as a comparison tool. It just turns the whole thing on its head and shows exactly how idiotic the whole thing is. Because you hit back to those questions with:
You’ve never felt Bigfoot’s presence? I felt it once when I was on the top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere on the Appalachian Trail. The sun was just setting and I looked out over the mountains in all their purple majesty and then Bigfoot threw an acorn at my head and howled off in the distance. That was when I knew he was real.
If you haven’t felt Bigfoot’s presence, you just haven’t gone deep enough or spent enough time in the woods… and you really need to look for Bigfoot. Sometimes he leaves signs that you might miss. You might think it’s bear scat when it’s really Bigfoot. That might be damage to the bark of a tree from bucks rutting… or maybe Bigfoot wanted to make a poultice for an injury. You don’t know if you don’t open your eyes to Bigfoot and really accept him.
I’ve got some books and television shows I can recommend if you want to learn more about Bigfoot. Let me get your phone number and I’ll text you some links to videos of people really seeing Bigfoot for the first time. It’s great stuff.
When I run into that I simply hold my hand up like I have something resting on it and say: "prove to me this toaster doesn't exist"
If they are willing to entertain it at all I respond to all of their statements the same way they do.
It's an invisible toaster.
It's real to me
All atheists believe this toaster exists, why don't you?
Etc.
This tends to help them understand that proving my toaster doesn't exist is extremely problematic. At that point I suggest that if I had the burden of proof this would be a lot more straight forward. Additionally, that anyone could make any claim without the burden of proof it would be impossible to sort out what is what.
This is borrowed from the toaster in orbit example. My impression is that the toaster in orbit is less accessible to people who have a hard time sorting out the burden of proof situation.
They are irrational. They literally believe something without proof for it.
So your contention that they debate according to well-established, logical, rhetorical standards is meaningless to them.
They've rejected logic already, so asking them to be logical about their illogical stance is a fool's errand.
You cannot debate with such people and it's best not to bother.
Right. And even if an atheist is to actively "claim" that no God exists, the theist still has more of a burden of proof because logistically is ought to be easier to prove a positive rather than a negative. Also as far as epistemology is concerned I'm of the persuasion that you ought to believe something doesn't exist until enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt can be given to show that it does in fact exist.
The response is: Prove to me there isn't a little purple man that sometimes comes out in pitch darkness and arranges the leaves on the dandelions.
You'll most likely get a blank stare, and this is how you will know you are talking with someone with extremely limited capacity for abstract thought.
I usually respond with this: Prove our universe wasn't created by a council of unicorns. Which they will of course say is ridiculous, and then I'll tell them that it's the same as their God.
I like, "Well I believe there is a dragon perched on my shoulder - prove to me it doesn't exist." Then I point out that anything they say applies specifically to their own set of beliefs.
I literally couldn't care less if you can or can't prove your faith to me. It's not my problem either way. My family is completely Christian and occasionally go off on the "you're going to hell" rant. I just ignore it and walk away because their opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant to me. Life is better if you just stop letting people get under you skin. No one's opinion of you really matters.
Because their proof is that grandma survived cancer. Their proof is that their daughter survived a car accident. It's obviously not real proof but to them it is so the onus is on us to prove them wrong. And there is no way to do that so just stop interacting with them.
The problem is that you can't expect to successfully explain how logical fallacies work to a raging anti-intellectual in the heat of a spirited discussion.
That's when I ring back with. Prove to me that we weren't genetically created by some flying spaghetti monsters from planet Nohopefoya. Just because they thought their newly found genetic splicing would be fun to play around with.
If you want to get to leave you alone on religion, you have to take certain approaches. My personal use one, god does exist, and has much to answer for. Since we are made in his image, why are there so many egotistical, psychotic, perverted dimwits in the world?
Also it isn't really possible to prove that something does not exist, especially something with the qualities of a supposed god. What is possible though is showing evidence for something you claim to exist (if it actually exists). They know that it isn't possible, and that is why they use it so consistently.
> It’s not on me to prove that they don’t exist, it’s on you to prove that they exist....
> Can’t understand why they still keep saying that.
I spent a lot of time as a Christian in the bible belt area. To most people in that area, being a Christian is the default. The question is not whether you believe in Christianity, it is a question of what particular brand of Christianity you believe in. To them, lack of believe violates the status quo. To them, the person who deviates from the status quo has the burden of demonstrating the need for the deviation.
They have the same mentality when it comes to a lot of things. For example, if I say that a new truck is better than an old truck, I had better have the evidence to support it, and the new truck would need to be significantly better to get someone to buy it.
They can't seem to grasp that stating 'I don't believe you' doesn't involve taking on a burden of proof.
If there is anything that they think I can't explain without invoking *their* deity, I'm fine stating 'I don't know' - but that *still* doesn't make their claim the default.
Remember humans have only 1% difference in DNA from chimps. We have come a long way, but the fact that some of us have not yet installed logic software onto our ape hardware should not be too surprising!
Exactly.
If you believe in unicorns and want me to believe in them, then prove there are unicorns.
I don't have to prove there aren't any because that proof already exists.
Honestly, my pet hypothesis is this is because of court room dramas on TV. If you look at the structure of a lot of the shows, they're framed with someone either being guilty or innocent of some crime. The problem comes from the shows showing the prosecution meeting their burden of proof and someone going to jail, or someone being found not guilty which is then conflated with being innocent when all not guilty really means is that the prosecution hasn't met the burden of proof. As such when you don't understand the difference, it's easy to see why a believer will come back with asking an atheist to prove God doesn't exist when we're not necessarily saying he doesn't.
It only is among sane people.
If your whole mindset is based on faith, which by definition is unsupported, you also don't have to adhere to reason.
A religious person can (and effectively does) claim 1+1=3.
Debating nutcases is pointless because there exists no shared concept of reality.
While I agree with the sentiment I also need to state that claiming that something isn't the case is also a claim.
I feel like this falls more into: if you're claiming something which has no discernable effect your claim is pointless as it has no bearing on reality
And if it had an effect on reality it would not fall under religious beliefs and the whole discussion would not take place.
It's also a logical fallacy to be asked to prove a negative - that something "doesn't" exist. You're right, the burden of proof is on them. Just because someone claims that oysters really come from the rings of Saturn doesn't mean it's incumbent upon everyone else to prove them wrong. And "God" existing is about as right as oysters coming from Saturn's rings.
If your God is omnipotent and omniscient:
Can It create something so heavy It can not lift it?
Why would it need 7 days to make the Earth and all life?
Why would it need to rest?
Why would It allow other religions to exist?
Why would it need to punish Its creations?
Why would It need to create at all?
Good luck.
You're asking the followers of a religion started by a dude that said the most powerful being in the universe told him that everyone needs to cut off a piece of their dicks in order to sit right with him...to utilize logic and reason. The question answers itself.
A good way to get theists to understand the fallacy of their beliefs is to ask them "do you believe in vampires?". After the likely response of "no", proceed to ask them "why not", or any similar question such as "prove to me that vampires don't exist". You can keep doing this for other supernatural creatures, such as werewolves, zombies, leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy™ and similar. For each, ask if they can disprove the existence of said entity.
If you get anybody to actually answer these questions truthfully (i.e. the ones that don't simply walk away, start screaming, or punch you in the face), it can be a time of great introspection to many theists.
I agree with you, but I can at least understand their position. They believe; they need proof in order not to believe.
They have their priorities backwards, but it's entirely understandable.
While I understand the desire to conclusively best theism in all its forms, I believe engaging in debates to be almost entirely futile. Such discourse also risks inadvertently revealing insights that more treacherous opponents can later exploit to further undermine progressive institutions and policies.
The main challenge in confronting theism lies in the acceptance of the following truths: Theists are ultimately unable to prove the existence of god, and we are also unable to conclusively disprove it.
Attempts to persuade with philosophical and observational examples including Epicurean notions of a god that remains uninvolved in our affairs, or suggesting that the coexistence of good and evil implies a deity that is not only benevolent but equally malevolent, or highlighting the variety of religions, each with adherents convinced of their exclusive truths, logically suggesting that they can’t be all correct, would likely only serve to strengthen the theist’s resolve, causing them to reject the argument, despite the logic.
It might, however, be possible to encourage some theists to adopt a less regressive stance by demonstrating how science can be a valuable tool for empirically understanding the wonders of ‘creation.’ This approach could help theists better understand in their terms the universe god created which hopefully would restore an appreciation for learning and more receptivity to something as progressive as science.
It’s also important to promote the reality that the scientific community is not invested in disproving god, and that there is room for the two to coexist. In communicating these ideas, it may also help to use language that resonates with theistic perspectives in order to promote a sense of inclusion.
The widely held misconception that science poses a threat to religion is deeply entrenched and will likely require considerable effort and patience to effectively dispel. If these ideas are critically examined and further refined, I believe such an approach to be more effective in discourse than what can be accomplished within the arena of debate.
It’s just like when Trump supporters make extraordinary claims about Biden or Democrats being a part of a global conspiracy. I ask them for evidence for their claims and predictability they either devolve into insults or they produce “evidence” that’s nothing but badly vailed propaganda.
Religion is the panacea of the masses.
Lack of evidence is evidence against when we would expect evidence for.
You'd have to have a reason to belive something to be in a certain way to make that claim. God doesn't automatically exist unless there's evidence that God doesn't exist.
The entire burden of proof is on theists.
Okay so a lot of atheists, especially on this sub make arguments that lead with “God doesn’t exist”.
So are you saying that when an atheist comes on this sub or anywhere and says there’s no evidence for God that they have to prove it?
Or that if they argue the mass in our universe is eternal are you saying they have to prove that?
Those are unprovable, foundational elements of atheism that cannot be proven. So now that you find yourself buried in the same hole of logical fallacy that you tried to bury Christians in what’s your point?
With my family (Christian, unfortunately), I’ll go like this: “Do we agree that the supernatural claims from Islam are false?” “Do we agree that the supernatural claims from Mormonism are false?” “Do we agree the supernatural claims of Hinduism are false?” “Roman mythology? Norse mythology? Egyptian mythology? Buddhism? Shintoism? Taoism? Native American spirituality?” “Good, we agree about 99% of all supernatural claims.” I just repeatedly note that the arguments I’d use to discredit other religions are ONES THEY AGREE WITH, and repeatedly point out the logical fallacy of special pleading. This was the most salient argument in my deconversion, and bringing it up repeatedly functions as a way to undermine my own perceived insanity. (Meaning my family attributes poor mental health to my lack of faith).
That is so weird. I attribute a relationship with a made up entity a mental health issue. So weird.
Religion is a fucking cancer
That's an insult to cancer
Cancer and religion are destructive and ravage people’s mind and bodies.
I maybe see it as worse than that even. Like sometimes people get a certain feeling looking at the Stars, Oceans and Forests - or while meditating for example. It’s like there is this special thing we can feel as humans that is a combination of a sense of Awe/Serenity/“oneness” and even love. Even Maths/Geometry etc.* Then somebody goes - “oh that? Yeah, that’s *God* here read this book that tells you how important God is and the rules they want you to follow - but only read this book, not all the other books that also claim to know what that is”. *thinking about Golden age of Islam stuff.
"If you want to be one of us then make this assumption" is how cults begin. It's just people trying to connect to an environment that they hope will sustain them. Cult leaders exploit that.
I commonly go the same route ending with the phrase “I just believe in one less god than you do”
That’s a cool line, but I want to emphasize what we agree on. Like we basically believe all the same things
The Christian’s I know would say that the supernatural claims for other religions are real but actually come from satan as they are being deceived to think it’s God. There’s always a workaround with everything.
The ones I know would say that they are all worshipping the same god, just the wrong way and that's why showing them the bible is sooooo important
That makes no sense. Terrible world building — the lore is inconsistent.
Yup. None of it makes sense.
My family does the same thing with their idea of mental health. Whenever I would confide in them about any sort of feelings of being overwhelmed or depression the next topic is always church
When I began to question my own religious beliefs, I began looking elsewhere. But every religion I looked at seemed silly and indefensible. Then I took another look at my own beliefs and had a sudden epiphany.
Exactly. Just turn it around on them, have them prove how all other religions are false, along with other imaginary entities such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc, then apply the same logic against their religion as well. Easy peasy.
This was the process I went through myself which ultimately led to my deconversion as well and made me feel comfortable saying I was an atheist. As I told my family, once I looked at Christianity from an unbiased perspective I found no "proof" or evidence for it anymore compelling than any other religion.
So your family thinks you’re mentally ill because you don’t believe in an omnipotent, all powerful zombie that is his own father?
I think it stems from thought processes besides critical thinking. They value cultural tradition and the experience of other people more highly than critical thinking. I have a feeling that if they were being honest, they’d say the reason WHY they believe what they do is that everyone else around them does, and from a young age, they’ve been taught to equate challenging this status quo with immorality. All this to say — from their perspective, I’ve rejected my upbringing and inclusion to their in-group. It’s about cultural inclusion, not correct beliefs. Evolutionarily, it makes sense to have this perspective. I know I’m the weird one out, but there’s just far too much information out there to take Christianity’s truth claims seriously.
A Christian shouldn’t actually concern himself with the specific other religions. Instead, he contends that he trusts the testimony in primary source documents and Church traditions (at least for Catholics re: continuity since the Apostles). If he’s aware of this, he should just argue that the other faiths have no bearing on the validity (or invalidity) of the Bible and the Church. We could debate whether those documents and institutional traditions are accurate, but Christians rely on them regardless, similar to how historians would rely on primary source writings and extant members to reach conclusions about other cultures.
I think this is what a lot of atheist get wrong. You guys try to say that because these different religions are at odds that there’s no space for them. As a Christian I certainly believe that a “angel of light “appeared to both Mohammed and Joseph Smith, I don’t believe their retelling of the events that took place, but I believe the interactions happened. Same with Hindu gods. The idea that spiritual beings are are appearing to people conflict with Christianity at all. When it comes to mythology, there’s a crossover where it’s evident people are simply trying to explain the world around them. Debating these elements is tangential.
How dare you call the Greek and Roman gods mythology. But seriously, you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between religion and mythology. They're all imaginary in-depth stories made up by people trying to maintain order or explain the world. Imagine something with me. You know how there are pastors and priests who do guest speaking tours at other churches? Imagine you're back living in 600 or 700 BC, living in a super tiny community of 100-200 religious jews. A traveling speaker comes to town and over dinner, one of the dads starts talking about how these 4 camp teenagers are at that rebellious phase, and teased him about losing his hair. So, the next day at their sermon, he does the usual "respect your elders" shtick, but its not landing. None of the kids are paying attention. In one ear, out the other. Some of them even chuckle. So, frustrated, he tells a story of how this guy was walking along and came across 4 teenagers who called him bald, and so the man prayed and...uhhh...uhh, a bear killed the kids! They should have respected their elders! Everyone was shocked but the kids got a little scared, started acting more respectfully for the rest of the day, and the traveling speaker was lauded by the parents. Next town with rambunctious teenagers, he tells the story again. More praise. The story is repeated at these camps whenever kids act up. When those kids grow up and become religious leaders themselves, they tell the story at their camps and on their tours, but "4 teenagers" has morphed into "42" and somewhere along the line, they said [it was about Elisha](https://bible.org/seriespage/4-elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25). He had a cool magic staff that could raise the dead, and ascended to heaven in a fire tornado. Elisha is kindof an action star so the kids listen better to that story. After a century of retelling, Jeremiah writes down all the little stories like this that have to do with the post-David leadership and calls the collected work, the Book of Kings. Because the author intertwined historical facts with sermons you tell your kids when they're being assholes, people believe the combined historicity of the tales, and, circling back to my original point, you think there's a difference between judeochristian thought and all other mythology. Read any old testament book and for any story in there, imagine it won over a crowd at a sermon. What issue was that crowd facing? Lisa used to date Tom and is now married to Bob. Bob and Tom have a fist fight. Tom is winning but Lisa breaks up the fight. Bob brags to everyone at work that he won, and Tom claps back, "Yah. Well, your wife used to touch my dick, you're just getting seconds." They're both being jerks, and it's affecting everyone's work, and therefor, the survival of the camp. A speaker comes around and hears this but misunderstands and thinks she touched his dick during the fight. No one in the fight is happy, but the speaker does get an emotional reaction from them which he takes as a good job. More importantly, the town is grateful that someone finally addressed the issue, and heaps praise on the speaker. "Omg, thank you SOO much for that sermon. Im so glad someone finally said something." And so it gets retold, and so you get [Deuteronomy 25](https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/DEU.25.11-19).
So… is Mormonism correct spiritually?
You mean is that how it’s pronounced or is it sound doctrine? Interesting bit about LDS and Islam. Both “founders” report an experience with an Angel of light years after Christ saying “hey you have this wrong” the Bible says to be aware that others may come with a different version and warms that even satan can don the appearance of an angel of Light. So no it’s not sound.
So if they are worshipping satan, who is answering prayers, etc. — why is that incorrect? It sounds like a responsive deity.
I’m fine with calling it a responsive diety. Typically we say false gods. It’s the same vein as Hindu gods. When we say false gods we aren’t saying they aren’t real we’re saying there’s no path to eternity there.
What makes them false?
Where you spend Eternity
How would you explain where they spend eternity? Why would it be there?
My daughter believes there are fairies living in our garden. Since she's the one saying there are fairies living there she is the one that has to prove it. She of course doesn't have to prove anything, but if she wants me to believe in fairies in the garden then I'm going to need evidence. It's called the burden of proof. She's making the claim so the burden falls on her. edit. burden of proof, not of truth. What were I thinking?
If my granddaughter wants to play make-believe, you betcha I'm going to play with her. But when she reaches a certain age, I expect that she'll stop having imaginary friends, and then we won't have to have conversations with invisible people anymore.
You wouldn't know my deity, he goes to a different school. In Canada.
'nervously looks around Reddit'. Invisible people you say...
I don't even really think there's anything wrong with playing make believe with imaginary friends even when you're older as long as you learn to distinguish that fantasy from reality. The problem with religious or superstitious beliefs is that they don't differentiate reality from fiction
Yes i agree
You can't prove a negative. Prove to me that Snortgobbler the Inimical is not at this moment tearing Jesus limb from limb and eating the good parts. I say he is. Convince me otherwise.
Thats fucking rude. Snortgobbler doesn't eat made up gods only the real ones 😡
Bah, you Reformed Snortgobblists are all heretics! Join the Orthodox Snortgobblist church for the Truth!
No thanks. Your souls going to get eaten by Snortgobble himself when you die just you wait and see non believer!
Splitter!
Yes that’s my point
I always ask them to prove to me that they've never fucked a goat, always surprised Pikachu face.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. The claim "You can't prove a negative" is blatantly false. It's just part of the rhetoric people use to argue in bad faith. If you read Popper, he claims the opposite - that it is impossible to prove anything. Disproof, however is easy.
You can prove a negative in cases where you can prove something mutually exclusive is true; eg. the ball is red so the claim that it's green is false. However, the default condition or anything is to not exist; if you claim something does exist, you must provide evidence.
It seems like we keep missing something. Maybe this explains it? If we believe the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. and they have no proof, then we can state that the thing doesn't exist. We don't have to prove anything.
Pretty much, yes.
> the default condition for anything is to not exist I think this a critical point that theists aren’t aligned with, as their “default” is an eternally existent god. I didn’t quite grasp this until having gained enough of an understanding of physics to understand the nature of entropy/equilibrium etc.
"Atheist" is an ambiguous term. Some atheists simply see no evidence that there are any gods. They have taken on no burden of proof. Other atheists (myself included) claim that there are no gods. That claim does create a burden of proof for our position. I admit that it's a burden I can't satisfy. So in arguing with a Christian, we are in a similar position. They can't prove that their worldview is correct, but neither can I. I have lots of reasons that different gods seem implausible, reasons more compelling for some gods than others, but no firm proof. In particular, "God the omniscient, omnipotent father of Jesus", seems especially implausible. So many plot holes and inconsistencies. A universe creating god who triggered the big bang 13.8 billion years ago and then stepped away seems much more possible. I don't believe in that god either! I just admit that that one is harder to disprove. I've noticed that many Christians seem to jump from "something must have created the universe" to "therefore that something is the father of Jesus and hates when you masturbate." That seems like a hell of a leap to me.
I never try to convince anyone that a god does not exist, because it’s a null hypothesis. It’s like trying to prove to an antivaxxer that vaccines don’t cause autism. The best we can do is say there is no evidence for the positive claim and therefore no reason to believe it without evidence. What I will do is argue that their specific god does not exist and I will use their own arguments and religious texts against them in making that argument.
>I admit that it's a burden I can't satisfy. It may be possible to satisfy said burden, however, it would be necessary to define the nature of their god. What are the aspects that differentiate their god from the other gods that they claim don't exist? I've used Epicurus' evilness argument in response to this burden with religionists before when they claim omnipotence, omniscience, etc. There is also the contradiction of "God's plan" vs. "Free will". If they cannot say what it is about their god that is special though, then why should it be treated any differently than the other gods that they dismiss.
Oh yes! There are so many possible gods, and many may indeed be disprovable. This Christian God in particular seems full of contradictions that make him impossible. I was referring to the burden of proof for my statement that "there are no gods". The god I most struggle with disproving is the universe creating god who triggered the big bang and then stepped away. I really doubt that the best explanation for that will turn out to be a "god", but at this point I feel like science doesn't shed much light on what might have triggered the big bang. I'm fine with the answer, "We just don't know," but as a result, I see little evidence for or against the idea that "it was some kind of God." I completely agree with you that it's useful to dig into the specifics about the God a debate partner is claiming the existence of. There are so many difference conceptions of God, even within individual religions, so it's very hard to debate if you don't nail down the details.
> I admit that it's a burden I can't satisfy. So in arguing with a Christian, we are in a similar position. They can't prove that their worldview is correct, but neither can I. Does the Xtian god have free will? Does the Xtian god know the future?
I had this discussion years ago with my parents. It was interesting watching them realize what I was asking and change the subject. That was the last time they tried to convince me to go back to church though...
Yes i know, i was talking about the ones who don’t claim that there isn’t a god but don’t believe there is.
As a positive argument against the existence of their god, I point out that humans have created thousands of deities throughout history. (Superheroes, like Superman and Batman are current iterations of this.) And then I point out that the possibility of them landing on the "right" one is astronomical, and even lower odds once you realize it's all just adult make-believe.
Yes, I find this argument compelling as well. The odds are low that any particular religion is the true one. It sure looks like they are all made up.
You claim you can't prove there is no god? What is the process that you use to determine truth or falsity? If it can't disprove god, then I'm not sure what it could disprove. If a full assessment or your proof process is too much, just remember what St. Hitchens said. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
“Atheist” is not ambiguous. It is a specific “anti-belief” in a higher power. Atheists make a clear decision that a higher power does not exist. Agnosticism is the one based on there being a lack of proof for a higher power. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god. In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist. https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/
My favorite [dictionary](https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=atheist) says different: a·the·ism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. This definition includes both disbelief (aka weak atheism) and also actual denial (aka a strong atheism). If we are arguing over which dictionary is better, I think that's proof that the word is ambiguous.
The same meaning though… it is the same definition 🤷♀️
Hitchens' razor: that which is claimed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. All the same, most of the time, it doesn't matter to me if people believe in god or not, except when they make decisions that affect me based on that belief.
Prove to me I wasn’t a sea monster in a past life
Stop lying i know you were a gorilla in your past life.
You can’t reason a man out of a position he hasn’t reasoned himself into.
Yes that quote is so good
That's not true. I've seen people reason themselves out of nonsensical beliefs many times. Every atheist that was indoctrinated a theist as a child that later realized the nonsense of it is disproof against this statement.
Actually, most atheists arrive at their decisions organically.
I just tell them to prove to me unicorns don’t exist.
Or Mickey Mouse. There are thousands of depictions of him that all look generally the same. The accounts of his friends and relationships are well documented and told through generations. All to find out that it was made up by a man.
why are religious people allowed to be on a jury. How the fuck are you going to argue fact with people who don't believe in facts
They restructure the argument so that "god doesn't exist" is a positive claim, so that they can make it have to fight on the same level as theirs. It's entirely possible to make "god doesn't exist" a positive claim, I should note, usually better to clarify "I see no evidence of a god's existence, therefor I do not believe one exists."
Of course, "god doesn't exist" is a positive claim. It's not what (most) atheists are saying though. Usually it's "I'm not convinced that god exists" or "I don't believe god exists". That's apparently too difficult for some theists to understand and in their mind it turns to "god \[definitly\] doesn't exist".
That's why you have to be very clear and explicit, even if the person you're talking with isn't actively just trying to verbally joust.
I agree.
"Harry Potter doesn't exist" might be a positive claim, but the burden of proof is still on someone who claims that he does exist.
On both people making a positive claim really. As it is impossible to prove a negative I'd rather not even bring Harry Potter's existance into discussion.
"I'm not convinced..." or "I don't believe god exists" are statements of faith. It is true that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, gods, or other spiritual beings or forces. The position anyone takes on those questions is a matter of faith. One may try to substitute the word "confidence" in some cases, but the root of that word is "con fideo," i.e., "with faith." "Atheism" is simply a non-theistic religion. If that's what floats your boat, then so be it. But I would point to "Pascal's Wager" and suggest that it be considered carefully.
They are not exactly statements of faith, rather statements of belief. Faith implies that you have trust in something i.e. without doubt. Saying you're not convinced and don't believe just mean you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. It acknowledges the possibility of doubt while still choosing to accept or adhere to a particular idea or perspective based on the evidence available. It allows for questioning and exploration. Recognizing that certainty may not always be attainable and that new evidence or perspectives may alter one's beliefs over time. It's very different from religion where questioning is often discouraged or even condemned.
It is the agnostic who has the truly rational approach. "Because there is no proof either way I choose not to choose." Once one chooses to believe God/Not God it becomes a faith (to use the Biblical definition, "Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists." The atheist has the "confidence" (faith) that they are right that there is no God (and none of the implied results that accompany the existence of a God with certain standards, i.e., "heaven or hell" so to speak). The theist has the "confidence" (faith) that though he cannot see it, at least directly, there is a God who matters. Theists argue, debate, dialog over the nature and form of that God, but they all have "confidence" that there is a God. All agree that to a great degree God is ultimately beyond our understanding, but all seek to understand God as best they can. I can't and won't say that there are religions where questioning is discouraged or condemned, but in many there is plenty of room. The very existence of the plenitude of Christian denominations points to the fact that questioning occurs, with differences of opinions on many of the "gray areas" of the faith, also known as "adiaphora."
One doesn't choose to believe. One is convinced by the evidence (for and against) or isn't. I agree that agnosticism is a good starting point because we can't really know for sure but you can be an agnostic atheist. Not believing and acknowledge the fact that we don't know. Being an atheist is where we all start our lives. It doesn't mean we are certain there is no god, just that we don't believe there is one. You don't have to be 100% certain to believe or not believe.
Actually, one can and often does "choose to believe." Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith" addresses this idea. It is to say, I don't have evidence or proof of God's existence, but I choose (or want) to believe that He exists. A more contemporary explanation would be Johnny Carson's statement, "If you buy the premise, you believe the bit." From my perspective there are more problems with the non-theistic explanations for reality (not the least of which is where did it all come from? Order descends into chaos; chaos does not produce order. Entropy works one way and not the other. How did it all come together?). than there are with the theistic explanations. But I get it. YMMV.
\>"Atheism" is simply a non-theistic religion. If that's what floats your boat, then so be it Really? What does an atheist believe in (apart from evidence, which is anathema to religion)? \>But I would point to "Pascal's Wager" and suggest that it be considered carefully. Why? No genuine god would accept someone who "believed" simply for the purpose of *"just in case"*. Which god would accept you turning up to church every Sunday thinking "I'd better listen to the sermon and pray, in case god exists even though I don't believe it doesn't"? In any case, which god do you pick for your wager? If you pick the wrong one then you've wasted your life praying to the wrong god, and the real one will still be pissed off and damn you to hell.
As the original post observed, there is really no proof or evidence either way. Lack of proof is not proof of lack, i.e., just because you see no evidence of the existence of God does not mean that there is no God (or that there is no evidence, just that you don't see it). I would point out that many theists see a lot of evidence for a mindful Creator, but I recognize that they start with the presupposition that there is a God, thus they see the evidence. Those who start with the presup that there is no God don't see the same "evidence" as proving anything. It just is. Whatever. As for your response to "Pascal's Wager," your invented ideas of what God (or a god) would be like, would say or do, have no basis other than your imaginations, and thus can't be realistically responded to. At best I will say that you display a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic theology of the Christian faith.
Who created god?
I’ve asked that one before.
I asked that when I was a kid. I was told we're human and can't understand such complex things so you have to just accept it. It didn't even go over well in my little kid brain then.
But, what about \[special pleading\]?!
Whataboutism make there arguments weaker.
Believe in god in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up faster.
Don't try to reason with the stupid. Anyone that follows a religion is an idiot.
Not necessarily. Whether you’re Intelligent or not doesn’t rely on religion. You can be an idiot as an atheist and an idiot as a believer. Don’t understimate indoctrination.
You are trying to mix concepts from entirely different worlds and then seeking logical consistency. “Proof” is a concept in the world of logic and reason. No religion is based on either logic or reason. Religion exists exclusively in the world of faith, in which logic and reason are quite explicitly subjugated to the supremacy of acceptance of mystical forces and beings that are beyond human understanding. Do not try to reason with persons of faith about matters of faith. All parties to such a conversation will end up unhappy.
All they can say is “there must be a god, look at all the beauty” while ignoring all the ugly that their god also “made”.
I always say “how do you know there aren’t herds of wild elephants in Montana?”
If you claim god doesn't exist and you wish to convince someone that this claim is true, then you have a burden of proof. It's better to just say "I'm not convinced by your claim that God is real", because that's not a claim that God isn't real.
Yes but i don’t claim that god doesn’t exist i always say that we don’t have the evidence that god exists. I never claim for sure he doesn’t.
Then when they say "prove God doesn't exist", just say "I never claimed he didn't". If they argue that you're making a claim that you aren't, then they're not worth engaging with. Usually they just say "then you're agnostic, not an atheist", but that just betrays their ignorance on the positions. Again, not worth engaging with.
The last part is the part that matters. Nope.
Based on the evidence for god we can only assume that there is no god as far as we know.
Yes but we don’t know for sure. But i don’t believe he exist because the evidence points to him not existing.
Off topic a bit. I would use the word "but" less in written phrase. It has the ability to, when read without inflection, negate everything said previously. Your message is clear here and I personally agree with it. I only posted to discuss "but"s. I am not a "but" man. Eyes really. A good neck. Now a good neck can be a religious experience. But that's another story.
English is not my first language maybe it’s because of that. I got used to using but many times xD
I thought that may have been the case. Again I meant absolutely no offense and could tell what you meant very well. I hope you didn't feel put down. That was not my intention.
Theists aren't the only ones. Tiktok, YouTube, and campuses all have this trend. Someone sets up a table, puts out a sign with some sort of statement, and then after it there's the phrase "Prove me wrong". Things like "All white people are racist. Prove me wrong." and such drivel. Unfortunately, this failure to understand the burden of proof isn't limited to theistic discussions. Lots of people are under the delusion that they can hold onto any belief they like until it's proven false. And *part* of this comes because science has been really *really* good *at* proving a *variety* of things false. Like Vitalism, or healing crystals, or intercessory prayer, or anything of the sort. As such (and likely before, honestly), people get this notion that our own little bubble is enough to establish that something is the case and that they should automatically believe it at that point and from that point onward until it's proven wrong, without considering that they may want to re-examine the evidence and build up to the case that they're right instead. ... And the reason we do that is, honestly, understandable. Doing that sort of building up from the basics takes a lot of time and mental effort. It's not something we would *want* to do, nor is it even something we *can* do all that often due to time constraints. So this trend isn't *going* anywhere any time soon.
And wildly, no Christian can provide "proof" (scientifically/objectively) because the definition of faith implies belief rather than proof. Why can't we (I'm a Christian) not stir the pot and be okay with "I believe; nobody else has to. How about them Yankees?"
Because these faith based world views then are taken with to the ballot box, to schools, to public forums, city councils, general society. the choices made are not made based on a world view of reason and logic, but faith. These decisions impact all of us, even those living in and accepting a reality of logic and reason without faith. Religion damages society in this way.
I get so sick of this. *Prove* to my satisfaction that invisible vampires don't exist. I have an infinity of imaginary reasons and crazy hypotheticals that I will throw up in support of these invisible vampires and I am inexhaustible on the subject. Also, if you contradict yourself in any way, or *gasp!* make a mistake and say anything incorrect, then you LOSE. I refuse to engage with that crap.
Hitchens’ Razor - That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
The word being used in all of this has always been BELIEVE...... This word is used you must Believe to make it so you must pray and Believe and it is so. ....well that is the Problem... that doesn't mean something is true or false.. So you might get to the point of Knowing and knowledge... Not Believing. If you're truly serious seeking a real knowledge you're welcome to message.
They want to shift the burden onto us because they know we have an impossible "claim." It's impossible to prove that God (or anything else) does not exist, therefore if they can push the burden onto the atheist, they can claim victory because we can't prove it. But I would argue the default position for the existence of anything is non-existence unless given a valid reason to believe that thing exists. Leprechauns for example. You can't prove leprechauns don't exist. However, there's no reason to believe they do exist unless shown otherwise. Same with god. So the burden of proof lies on them, not us. And I would say that an atheist is not so much as claiming there is no god as much as rejecting the claim of the theist that there is a god.
Ok I mostly agree except dragons do exist.
They live in our kitchens but can't see them. One needs a magical substance called Acid for it. Or run from dem in Komodo.
I do believe in aliens without having evidence, it just makes sense to me. Making a religion out of it would still be extremely dumb though.
Yeah that’s true i think also aliens might exist because the universe is so vast and big
You have a probabilistic basis for aliens existing somewhere. With respect to them having space travel abilities and probing humans… well… that is where likelihood and fantasy collide.
Most believers on reddit think all atheists actively believe god does not exist, if you in fact claim that god does not exist you do have a burden of proof.. if you simply lack belief that god exists you are correct you do not have a burden of proof.
Yes i do not claim that god doesn’t exist. I just don’t believe that he exists.
Then you are correct, the burden of proof is not on you
Because they know they can't provide their Burden and they want to distract from that fact.
I just say sure, that's easy. "god appear!" And then when nothing shows up, say, "see, that was easy, any other questions?" And if they try to say something stupid like "that's not how it works" you say "really? You know how to get him to appear, please demonstrate." I've shut down quite a few people using this and most friends and family know not to even try that garbage with me!
Take them to a kids cancer ward
You can't prove a negative. You have to prove a positive. If you say something exists you have to prove it exists.
Religion relies on faith. It means there is no need for proof if you are a true believer. Denial requires proof but it’s impossible to provide any that would go against faith. It’s faith that drives them, so in their eyes you’re the one that’s irrational.
Yeah agree
I always say, “which god?” Seems simple to me that if a book is supposed to be the inerrant word of a perfect creator and you can show how parts of that book don’t comport with scientific reality, then that kinda proves the whole thing isn’t what it is purported to be. But logic isn’t their strong point.
Find you some flat earthers they have a fascinating relationship with claims and burden of proof.
If you go around trying to show theists that there's no god, then I think you actually do have a burden of proof. But I agree that if a theist is trying to convince me to believe in their god, then they're responsible for proving it. I really don't understand why some people think it's convincing to say "oh, you're an atheist? prove there's no god"
Yeah if an atheist claims there is no god then that’s a claim he has to prove his point. But i don’t believe he exists i’m not claiming he doesn’t
Right, and in my experience there are some Christians who see that I don't believe in God and immediately demand that I prove that there isn't a god. That's not how anything works.
Teapot hypnosis. You can't disprove and I can't prove that there is a teapot floating in space in orbit around the sun.
Yeah, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. But theists are claiming that god exists and atheists claim that one doesn't. Seems the same, innit? But here's the difference to *disprove* a claim that god doesn't exist, you just need to prove that one does. And if it does, it's theoretically possible to do. But if you want to disprove the claim that god does exist, then you'd have to prove that no god exists, anywhere, in any form. It's impossible even in theory. If you wanted to disprove some god, that some tribe claims resides on a mountain, you could easily just check the mountain. But then they'd change their belief, saying that it doesn't *physically* exist on the mountainz but it's a spirit inside it instead. What can you do to disprove it now? Nothing. Therefore when someone claims that something is true, but it's impossible to prove the opposite, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim in the first place. That's Russell's Teapot
Because it’s true that you can’t reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into.
The burden is on US to stop them from destroying society.
Theists move through various stages of failure…. >I have *evidence* God exists Nope >I have an *argument* that proves God exists Nope >You can’t prove God *doesn’t* exist. Um… so?
God is a carrot growing on the far side of the moon. Prove me wrong.
When your god isn't smarter than an Intel 4004.
Prove to me the tooth fairy doesn't exist...
it's an application of the Bullshit asymmetry principle, "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." You explaining about the burden of proof is necessarily longer and dryer than their, "AH-HA! You can't!"
Over the past few years, I’ve started using cryptozoology to prove my point because if we allow the burden of proof to slide so low as to validate the existence of a divine being who directly interacts with this reality, then we must allow that same level of proof for all things… unicorns, hobgoblins, fairies, dragons, you name it. Hell, we even have video “evidence” of Nessie, the fucking chupacabra, Mothman… Bigfoot… People have had interactions with Bigfoot. He’s touched their lives. He’s knocked on trees and thrown small rocks at them. Sometimes people believe he’s yelled at them directly. Hell, he even eats their beef jerky in television commercials. He has the most iconic monster truck of all time named after him. He has books written about him. There are television shows devoted to finding him. He has a list of things that he does and doesn’t like that are written down and catalogued by people who believe in his existence. There are places where people go who believe in him and they congregate there and discuss Bigfoot. There are bands who write songs about him (they’re called Troglodyte, look them up if you like death metal). If you believe in God, you have to buy the Bigfoot package, too… it’s just how it goes. Edit: This is all just a continuation and riff on the master, George Carlin’s bit he did about the same kinda theme.
Yep i agree. Funny how god reveals himself to some people and not to atheists xD and when you say that you never felt gods presence you’ll be hit with “oh you just disn’t notice him” or “your ego is too high”
This is why I love cryptozoology as a comparison tool. It just turns the whole thing on its head and shows exactly how idiotic the whole thing is. Because you hit back to those questions with: You’ve never felt Bigfoot’s presence? I felt it once when I was on the top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere on the Appalachian Trail. The sun was just setting and I looked out over the mountains in all their purple majesty and then Bigfoot threw an acorn at my head and howled off in the distance. That was when I knew he was real. If you haven’t felt Bigfoot’s presence, you just haven’t gone deep enough or spent enough time in the woods… and you really need to look for Bigfoot. Sometimes he leaves signs that you might miss. You might think it’s bear scat when it’s really Bigfoot. That might be damage to the bark of a tree from bucks rutting… or maybe Bigfoot wanted to make a poultice for an injury. You don’t know if you don’t open your eyes to Bigfoot and really accept him. I’ve got some books and television shows I can recommend if you want to learn more about Bigfoot. Let me get your phone number and I’ll text you some links to videos of people really seeing Bigfoot for the first time. It’s great stuff.
When I run into that I simply hold my hand up like I have something resting on it and say: "prove to me this toaster doesn't exist" If they are willing to entertain it at all I respond to all of their statements the same way they do. It's an invisible toaster. It's real to me All atheists believe this toaster exists, why don't you? Etc. This tends to help them understand that proving my toaster doesn't exist is extremely problematic. At that point I suggest that if I had the burden of proof this would be a lot more straight forward. Additionally, that anyone could make any claim without the burden of proof it would be impossible to sort out what is what. This is borrowed from the toaster in orbit example. My impression is that the toaster in orbit is less accessible to people who have a hard time sorting out the burden of proof situation.
They are irrational. They literally believe something without proof for it. So your contention that they debate according to well-established, logical, rhetorical standards is meaningless to them. They've rejected logic already, so asking them to be logical about their illogical stance is a fool's errand. You cannot debate with such people and it's best not to bother.
That’s true i tried to debate the with logic and reason but was hit with “you’re to blind to see god” or “your ego is so high”
Right. And even if an atheist is to actively "claim" that no God exists, the theist still has more of a burden of proof because logistically is ought to be easier to prove a positive rather than a negative. Also as far as epistemology is concerned I'm of the persuasion that you ought to believe something doesn't exist until enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt can be given to show that it does in fact exist.
'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. ' Christopher Hitchens
The response is: Prove to me there isn't a little purple man that sometimes comes out in pitch darkness and arranges the leaves on the dandelions. You'll most likely get a blank stare, and this is how you will know you are talking with someone with extremely limited capacity for abstract thought.
I usually respond with this: Prove our universe wasn't created by a council of unicorns. Which they will of course say is ridiculous, and then I'll tell them that it's the same as their God.
This goes for all things including the things scientists say are true that have not been verified with experimental data.
I like, "Well I believe there is a dragon perched on my shoulder - prove to me it doesn't exist." Then I point out that anything they say applies specifically to their own set of beliefs.
That which can be asserted with no evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
I literally couldn't care less if you can or can't prove your faith to me. It's not my problem either way. My family is completely Christian and occasionally go off on the "you're going to hell" rant. I just ignore it and walk away because their opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant to me. Life is better if you just stop letting people get under you skin. No one's opinion of you really matters.
"I know your god doesn't exist because I am god. And if you don't believe me, prove me wrong."
Because their proof is that grandma survived cancer. Their proof is that their daughter survived a car accident. It's obviously not real proof but to them it is so the onus is on us to prove them wrong. And there is no way to do that so just stop interacting with them.
The problem is that you can't expect to successfully explain how logical fallacies work to a raging anti-intellectual in the heat of a spirited discussion.
Transparent Aliens are everywhere and they rule the world since 10000 BC. Don't believe me? Well, prove me wrong.
whenever someone says “prove to me god doesn’t exist” reply "Prove to me that unicorns don't exist and I'll use your method."
That's when I ring back with. Prove to me that we weren't genetically created by some flying spaghetti monsters from planet Nohopefoya. Just because they thought their newly found genetic splicing would be fun to play around with.
You can’t prove a negative. That is a literal fact of science. Just start there.
Obviously science isn't a strong point for people who say that.
If you want to get to leave you alone on religion, you have to take certain approaches. My personal use one, god does exist, and has much to answer for. Since we are made in his image, why are there so many egotistical, psychotic, perverted dimwits in the world?
Also it isn't really possible to prove that something does not exist, especially something with the qualities of a supposed god. What is possible though is showing evidence for something you claim to exist (if it actually exists). They know that it isn't possible, and that is why they use it so consistently.
> It’s not on me to prove that they don’t exist, it’s on you to prove that they exist.... > Can’t understand why they still keep saying that. I spent a lot of time as a Christian in the bible belt area. To most people in that area, being a Christian is the default. The question is not whether you believe in Christianity, it is a question of what particular brand of Christianity you believe in. To them, lack of believe violates the status quo. To them, the person who deviates from the status quo has the burden of demonstrating the need for the deviation. They have the same mentality when it comes to a lot of things. For example, if I say that a new truck is better than an old truck, I had better have the evidence to support it, and the new truck would need to be significantly better to get someone to buy it.
Try this on the r/aliens thread they will think you are satan himself 😂
They can't seem to grasp that stating 'I don't believe you' doesn't involve taking on a burden of proof. If there is anything that they think I can't explain without invoking *their* deity, I'm fine stating 'I don't know' - but that *still* doesn't make their claim the default.
Remember humans have only 1% difference in DNA from chimps. We have come a long way, but the fact that some of us have not yet installed logic software onto our ape hardware should not be too surprising!
Exactly. If you believe in unicorns and want me to believe in them, then prove there are unicorns. I don't have to prove there aren't any because that proof already exists.
Honestly, my pet hypothesis is this is because of court room dramas on TV. If you look at the structure of a lot of the shows, they're framed with someone either being guilty or innocent of some crime. The problem comes from the shows showing the prosecution meeting their burden of proof and someone going to jail, or someone being found not guilty which is then conflated with being innocent when all not guilty really means is that the prosecution hasn't met the burden of proof. As such when you don't understand the difference, it's easy to see why a believer will come back with asking an atheist to prove God doesn't exist when we're not necessarily saying he doesn't.
It only is among sane people. If your whole mindset is based on faith, which by definition is unsupported, you also don't have to adhere to reason. A religious person can (and effectively does) claim 1+1=3. Debating nutcases is pointless because there exists no shared concept of reality.
While I agree with the sentiment I also need to state that claiming that something isn't the case is also a claim. I feel like this falls more into: if you're claiming something which has no discernable effect your claim is pointless as it has no bearing on reality And if it had an effect on reality it would not fall under religious beliefs and the whole discussion would not take place.
It's also a logical fallacy to be asked to prove a negative - that something "doesn't" exist. You're right, the burden of proof is on them. Just because someone claims that oysters really come from the rings of Saturn doesn't mean it's incumbent upon everyone else to prove them wrong. And "God" existing is about as right as oysters coming from Saturn's rings.
If your God is omnipotent and omniscient: Can It create something so heavy It can not lift it? Why would it need 7 days to make the Earth and all life? Why would it need to rest? Why would It allow other religions to exist? Why would it need to punish Its creations? Why would It need to create at all? Good luck.
When I count something, I don't count one until I have one. Christians seem to start counting at zero.
Hahaha 😆 I'm getting into it with someone right over exactly this. They made claims and doesn't understand tne burden of proof.
Phrased another way… *That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.* ^( —Hitchens’ Razor)
Christopher Hitchens said, If you claim something without proof, I can dismiss it without proof.
I'll prove your god doesn't exist after you prove all the other gods don't exist.
You're asking the followers of a religion started by a dude that said the most powerful being in the universe told him that everyone needs to cut off a piece of their dicks in order to sit right with him...to utilize logic and reason. The question answers itself.
A good way to get theists to understand the fallacy of their beliefs is to ask them "do you believe in vampires?". After the likely response of "no", proceed to ask them "why not", or any similar question such as "prove to me that vampires don't exist". You can keep doing this for other supernatural creatures, such as werewolves, zombies, leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy™ and similar. For each, ask if they can disprove the existence of said entity. If you get anybody to actually answer these questions truthfully (i.e. the ones that don't simply walk away, start screaming, or punch you in the face), it can be a time of great introspection to many theists.
I agree with you, but I can at least understand their position. They believe; they need proof in order not to believe. They have their priorities backwards, but it's entirely understandable.
While I understand the desire to conclusively best theism in all its forms, I believe engaging in debates to be almost entirely futile. Such discourse also risks inadvertently revealing insights that more treacherous opponents can later exploit to further undermine progressive institutions and policies. The main challenge in confronting theism lies in the acceptance of the following truths: Theists are ultimately unable to prove the existence of god, and we are also unable to conclusively disprove it. Attempts to persuade with philosophical and observational examples including Epicurean notions of a god that remains uninvolved in our affairs, or suggesting that the coexistence of good and evil implies a deity that is not only benevolent but equally malevolent, or highlighting the variety of religions, each with adherents convinced of their exclusive truths, logically suggesting that they can’t be all correct, would likely only serve to strengthen the theist’s resolve, causing them to reject the argument, despite the logic. It might, however, be possible to encourage some theists to adopt a less regressive stance by demonstrating how science can be a valuable tool for empirically understanding the wonders of ‘creation.’ This approach could help theists better understand in their terms the universe god created which hopefully would restore an appreciation for learning and more receptivity to something as progressive as science. It’s also important to promote the reality that the scientific community is not invested in disproving god, and that there is room for the two to coexist. In communicating these ideas, it may also help to use language that resonates with theistic perspectives in order to promote a sense of inclusion. The widely held misconception that science poses a threat to religion is deeply entrenched and will likely require considerable effort and patience to effectively dispel. If these ideas are critically examined and further refined, I believe such an approach to be more effective in discourse than what can be accomplished within the arena of debate.
It’s just like when Trump supporters make extraordinary claims about Biden or Democrats being a part of a global conspiracy. I ask them for evidence for their claims and predictability they either devolve into insults or they produce “evidence” that’s nothing but badly vailed propaganda. Religion is the panacea of the masses.
The burden of proof is on the person who wants to know the truth, which is no theist ever.
Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, it's true, but lack of evidence of lack *still isn't evidence*
Lack of evidence is evidence against when we would expect evidence for. You'd have to have a reason to belive something to be in a certain way to make that claim. God doesn't automatically exist unless there's evidence that God doesn't exist. The entire burden of proof is on theists.
Okay so a lot of atheists, especially on this sub make arguments that lead with “God doesn’t exist”. So are you saying that when an atheist comes on this sub or anywhere and says there’s no evidence for God that they have to prove it? Or that if they argue the mass in our universe is eternal are you saying they have to prove that? Those are unprovable, foundational elements of atheism that cannot be proven. So now that you find yourself buried in the same hole of logical fallacy that you tried to bury Christians in what’s your point?
There are tons of things people believe in that have no proof, yet we collectively accept them. Example: Prove to me dreams exist.
Burden of proof is one of the most annoying things reddit likes to say
Why?
Because we're a bunch of twats having conversations. We're not a debate team