Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Which is what I said in my very first post on Page 1:

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement can be established in the affirmative, or disproved by showing that something that contradicts it is true.

you seem very confused to me. Try again and make it simple.
thank you

Ok. In base 10, I claim that 2+2=5. I can show that this is wrong
- directly (2+2=4, not 5)
- indirectly via a contradictory claim being shown to be true (2+3=5, not 2+2)

Since the arguments from Christians are never deemed satisfactory, I have gone down the alternative route of inviting those who commit to a naturalistic philosophy (i.e. there are only natural causes and explanations) to substantiate their claims. If all causes have natural explanations, this invalidates any supernatural claims by default.

It's not a popular request!!

[floo]

Ok. In base 10, I claim that 2+2=5. I can show that this is wrong
- directly (2+2=4, not 5)
- indirectly via a contradictory claim being shown to be true (2+3=5, not 2+2)

Since the arguments from Christians are never deemed satisfactory, I have gone down the alternative route of inviting those who commit to a naturalistic philosophy (i.e. there are only natural causes and explanations) to substantiate their claims. If all causes have natural explanations, this invalidates any supernatural claims by default.

It's not a popular request!!

It is down to the people who make positive claims for things like the existence of god who have to provide the proof, not those of us who don't think it exists as there is no evidence to substantiate its existence. If I say there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden you would expect me to provide proof of that statement, you wouldn't expect to have to provide proof they aren't there would you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I have gone down the alternative route of inviting those who commit to a naturalistic philosophy (i.e. there are only natural causes and explanations) to substantiate their claims.

No-one does that.

It's not a popular request!!

Presumably because it's a dishonest one.

[Walter]

Sword,
WTF
How many more times does it need explaining to you. The reason its not a popular request is because its STUPID!

No offence....

[Gordon]

Since the arguments from Christians are never deemed satisfactory, I have gone down the alternative route of inviting those who commit to a naturalistic philosophy (i.e. there are only natural causes and explanations) to substantiate their claims. If all causes have natural explanations, this invalidates any supernatural claims by default.

It's not a popular request!!

You should be able to deduce then that nobody here adopts this stance: but you've been told this before.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I say there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden you would expect me to provide proof of that statement

Frankly Scarlett..... I couldn't give a Damn

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

It is down to the people who make positive claims for things like the existence of god who have to provide the proof, not those of us who don't think it exists ...

So you and others keep on saying. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. So when you say

as there is no evidence to substantiate its existence.

That is a positive statement. It presupposes that you would know what kind of evidence would convince you. It certainly assumes that you know the nature of the claim for which you are claiming there is no evidence. So, I try one more time. What kind of evidence would convince you? Or are you going to claim again that if God exists, it is His responsibility to convince you?

If I say there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden you would expect me to provide proof of that statement

Ah, the variant on the Celestial Teapot strikes again!! 

I would be interested in why you would be claiming this, e.g. did you really believe this? If so, what were your reasons. Let's face it. I don't really need to go there, do I? No. Some have an impression of what religious belief is (i.e. made up) so they make up something that doesn't exist (teapots in space, bluehillside's dancing pixies on keyboards) and compare it with religious belief. There is no common frame of reference unless the starting point is that there is no evidence and no reasoning behind or for religious belief.

[Maeght]

What kind of evidence would convince you? hat there is no evidence and no reasoning behind religious belief.

Can you define God first.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

There is no common frame of reference unless the starting point is that there is no evidence and no reasoning behind religious belief.

Wrong.

I've told you why it's wrong several times now but as you just ignore the rebuttal and repeat the mistake I see no reason to do so again.

[Walter]

Jeez it IS made up, ALL OF IT

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You should be able to deduce then that nobody here adopts this stance: but you've been told this before.

Nobody adopts any stance.
This whole forum is for some an exercise in not being pinned down. The rest of us wonder why that should be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nobody adopts any stance.

This whole forum is for some an exercise in not being pinned down. The rest of us wonder why that should be.

In which Vlad bemoans the fact that no-one has actually signed up to the straw men he constructs in order to critique them.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Can you define God first.

It is not for me to define God first Maeght. This is what Floo said:

It is down to the people who make positive claims for things like the existence of god who have to provide the proof, not those of us who don't think it exists as there is no evidence to substantiate its existence.

So if Floo is claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence. It also means that (in the absence of proof for her claim), she should know what kind of evidence she would see as evidence for God.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Jeez it IS made up, ALL OF IT

Another positive claim!

Any chance of any evidence and/or proof of this?

[Gordon]

Nobody adopts any stance.
This whole forum is for some an exercise in not being pinned down. The rest of us wonder why that should be.

Why is it important to be 'pinned down'?   

[Walter]

Being stupid is not an offence but in your case it should be

good luck with your critical thinking skills though

[Nearly Sane]

It is not for me to define God first Maeght. This is what Floo said:
So if Floo is claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence. It also means that (in the absence of proof for her claim), she should know what kind of evidence she would see as evidence for God.

what has Floo's statement got to do with Maeght?

[Gordon]

It is not for me to define God first Maeght. This is what Floo said:

Maeght asked you to define God: what Floo thinks is another matter entirely.

So if Floo is claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence. It also means that (in the absence of proof for her claim), she should know what kind of evidence she would see as evidence for God.

There's that 'proof' again: the rest is just the same incoherent nonsense you've been corrected on before.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

...it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence

No it doesn't. As you just ignore the rebuttals that undo you, see if you can work out for yourself why it doesn't...

(Clue: a logically false argument claimed as "evidence" is a logically false argument regardless of the conclusion it produces.)

[Walter]

Why does he persist with this nonsense. If it were me  I would be hanging my head in shameful embarrassment .

[floo]

Another positive claim!

Any chance of any evidence and/or proof of this?

You have been asked to provide proof your god exists, you haven't!

[Walter]

Oh I hope he does, I WANT TO BELIEVE its the real reason I came here.

[torridon]

So if Floo is claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence. It also means that (in the absence of proof for her claim), she should know what kind of evidence she would see as evidence for God.

Not really.

We could equally validly state that there is no evidence for a "*&*^"*£%^FD&". The reason being there will be no evidence for anything undefined.  In principal we could say something about evidence from a definition but there is no real definition for a god except in the vaguest of terms; hence we know there cannot be any clinching evidence; hence there cannot be any real justification for holding a belief in god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

No it doesn't. As you just ignore the rebuttals that undo you, see if you can work out for yourself why it doesn't...

(Clue: a logically false argument claimed as "evidence" is a logically false argument regardless of the conclusion it produces.)

Stop taking the piss Hillside. If one says X does not exist then that suggests that one knows what X is other wise one is talking Carp.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really.

We could equally validly state that there is no evidence for a "*&*^"*£%^FD&". The reason being there will be no evidence for anything undefined.  In principal we could say something about evidence from a definition but there is no real definition for a god except in the vaguest of terms; hence we know there cannot be any clinching evidence; hence there cannot be any real justification for holding a belief in god.

Yes but there is a mountain of definition for God but "*&*^"*£%^FD&" is something you've just typed in......even though it's the most meaningful thing I've ever seen you post on here.