Why do I have to disprove it? Please don't ask me to do the impossible. You make the claim God exists, it's your job to prove it. I'll say it for the I-don't-know-what-number-time-this-is-anymore. You cannot search for the absence of something.
Its a fact that god does not exist
- Thread starter Seer Travis Truman
- Start date
Why do I have to disprove it? Please don't ask me to do the impossible. You make the claim God exists, it's your job to prove it. I'll say it for the I-don't-know-what-number-time-this-is-anymore. You cannot search for the absence of something.
No, the claim of this thread is that god does NOT exist. Evidence is needed to prove that claim. So far I have not seen any proof for that claim.
You. Cannot. Prove. A. Negative.
However provocatively he states it, STT is correct in saying that scepticism should prevail in the absence of evidence toward a positive claim.
When i say "God does not exist", and you affirm that he does, i expect evidence to back up the point. If i were to say - to go back to it - there's no bread in my house, and you claimed there was, i await proof. As it happens, there is bread in my house, and i can prove it beyond reasonable doubt with some crumbs from my breadbin and producing the bread itself.
That is not so. I have showed in many ways why there is no god creature. You are just trying to reverse the burden of proof onto Me because you have not a shred of legitimate evidence.
The bible is not evidence of god. It is written by humans, that you agree.
What if we take take the story "Journey to the center of the earth". Why would you think that was true just because it is in an old book?
What the bible says does not matter, because its written by someone who makes the same claim as you do. Quoting previous examples of claim is not evidence.
Incorrect. Its an objective claim.
If that is True, for the sake of argument, then My "view" could differ from yours. Then My view can be that "There are objective Truths.". So, I would be right. But that cannot be.
It is insane to suggest that there are not objective facts. Your "perception" argument is just a dismissive tactic to avoid answering opponents points.
This repeated denial of the fact he has no evidence and there are many reasons against the god myth just shows you how god-addicts embrace one derangement, causing the on-going and continuing inventing of further derangements to cover the first blunder.
He not only has no evidence, but no argument in favour of the god myth.
What is also important is the possibility of existence. "If a tree falls in he woods, can it make a sound if there is nobody there to hear it?" - the answer is no.
All existence is rooted in the individuals True Reality. The idea that one can go their entire life-time without encountering a single legitimate argument or shred of evidence, or a single experience of the god creature could possibly claim that there exists such a god creature is obviously mentally unsound.
The idea that a god creature exists, monitors and judges the behaviors of humans, creates natural systems and then insanely commands that humans deny their nature etc etc is so retarded that it is simply ridiculous.
Last edited:
I always qualified by saying that it is my own perception. As much as you feel that you need no evidence in that there is absolutely no doubt in your mind that He does not exist, I feel I need no evidence that there is no doubt in my mind that He does exist. I also don't say you are wrong or that I am right or that any of the two of us have superior knowledge. Just that our opinions are different. You can debate as much as you like, but with nothing in your hand, you could never persuade me differently, just on a "say so" or "scepticism prevailing" basis. Neither do I expect you to believe me as I have no real empirical evidence to offer you either.
Last edited:
It is a negative. Atheism is an absence of belief in a god.
It would be a two-way street if i were, say, a Hindu. Arguing against a Christian. I would have to justify my belief in Brahman, and the Christian his, in Yahweh.
If you were simply saying that you wanted the other person to give you evidence, yes. You're claiming atheism to be correct (going so far as to call religion a stupid belief). That is a positive claim, not of a god (or lack thereof) but of an opinion. You must ether prove that you're correct or stop making such claims.
You guys keep ignoring the obvious. The Bible is the primary evidence of God. You may choose to disbelieve the evidence, but those who do so know that and are simply maintaining the position with which they entered the debate. There is nothing wrong with standing your ground, but at least be honest about it.
Chuck, I don't believe it is primary evidence. The closest to primary could be that some of the authors may have been inspired by God. There are many flaws in the Bible, such as lots of damning and judging, which I think really belong to people who wrote the bible so that they can get other people's obedience through fear. The Bible can actually be misleading representing to humans a God that has been created in their own image rather than the other way round.
Not an unfair view. However it comes right to the edge of some pretty slippery semantics. Given the nature of divine intervention how do you differentiate between "evidence" and "inspired"? I call it close enough for horseshoes. My interpretation is that the apparent inconsistencies are intentional and made to make us think. Scripture is not intended to be a rote learning tool, 'do it this way and you'll be perfect.' It is capable of being conceptually read and understood by every person in every culture on earth. Does every part have meaning for every person? I don't know. I think that in its entirety the whole Bible is supposed to be a mystery, so by definition it is not to be wholly understood by anyone. Is it "understandable?" I don't know.
I'm saying that until proven otherwise, beyond reasonable doubt, I remain in scepticism. Thus, I have a lack of belief.
Did I call religion stupid? It doesn't matter, it happens I do think so. I don't know about proving, but I will justify my opinion. If a god truly did exist, that humans claim to know its nature is incredibly pretentious, and the epitome of vanity, as far as i'm concerned. There is no reason to presume your specific deity is to be believed, over anothers'. The only reasons you may believe it are because you have been indoctrinated with it, due to social conditioning or because you have failed to understand something, and choose, unjustifiably, to fill the gap with what I see as a frankly ridiculous doctrine. That is why I call religion stupid, if indeed I did.
In regards to positive and negative claims, I can make any number of ridiculous claims. It would be my job to prove them, not yours to disprove them. For example, I challenge you to disprove my hypothesis that:
The universe was created by a giant celestial turtle, named Kevin, that exists outside time and space. He belched the remains of the previous universe, which became the strings for this one.
Last edited:
Agreed. I presume you are arguing against Christianity, but since that's the only religion I really know I'll stick with that. Where is Scripture does it claim that we know the nature of God? I don't interpret that?
Agreed. Other than that is what it says, of course.
Agreed, except that using human concepts such as "failed" and "ridiculous" tends to remove your logic from the concepts of theology. All disciplines have their own logic, you know?
Last edited:
Sorry, i just noticed my own fallacy. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. It should say "failed to understand something". My mistake. I'll see if I can rectify by editing. Obviously, "ridiculous" is a personal conviction, not really a part of the argument, in all honesty. I can remove it if you are offended?
Not offended. Just being "picky picky "f-in" picky."
BTW, I added a sentence above, about that's what it says.
Incorrect. It is not a positive claim. They claim god exists, I then refute that with "god does not exist". Its not a new or positive claim, its a negative.
"Atheism is correct"...well that a re-wording of what was said. Atheism here means "God does not exist". Thats a negative.
Religions are more than stupid beliefs. They are genocidally destructive, toxic and delusional lies.
It is not a form of evidence at all, and there is not any single piece of legitimate evidence at all.
Dont try and call Me dishonest. You are being dishonest because you live a lie, your religion is all a pack of lies you use to delude yourself. You be honest. The bible is not evidence of any god. I have already proven it is not, and you can offer no proof it is.
The Truth is that god does not exist, he is made up by societal leaders and other deranged humans. Humans that are broken and pathetic cling to this insane delusion as a "comfort" in pathetic and cowardly lies. The Forbidden Truth is that death is unavoidable. Death occurs because the brain loses it cellular integrity due to lack of blood-flow etc. The brain then begins to behave like a piece of meat outside a fridge - it rots. The cells that make up your brain slowly rot away and you die.
Death is final. When you die, you cease to exist for all eternity, and experience nothingness. It is the same as if you were never born, never existed. Nothing you do in life can ever make any difference to these facts, everything you achieved in life is lost, null and void, upon your unstoppable death. Nothing in life can aid or comfort you in death.
You can delude yourself with the god myth and reject the Truth of death, but death will still come and all will be lost. You will suffer the fate of experiencing nothingness for all eternity and there is nothing you can do about it.
Anyone even going to attempt to answer Me?
Last edited:
You should of used another name.
Considering that the creator of a game I play is so named, that's actually quite true within it's confines.Similar threads
