We evolved from a great ape, now what?

[Woo Bum-kon]

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.

And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.

And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it.

And no, we still aren't on equal footing. The default position is non-belief. Period. The theist is the one who makes the claim that there is a god. Therefore, the theist has burden of proof.

You brought up the study of knowledge, so let's go with that. The reason why I brought up the fact that we are all born atheists is because knowledge--justified, true, belief--is gained through logic and reasoning. When one is presented with a claim, they examine the evidence, then come to a conclusion based off said evidence. That's the best way to find out whether something is true or not. The claim is that a god exists, and the evidence doesn't support the claim. If the evidence does not support the claim, the one should not believe in that claim. If you care about what is true, you wouldn't be a theist.

[mouse]

We still can't create one living cell without borrowing DNA from another. Maybe one day...

And when that day comes you become a "creator" so at the end Science only proves creation?

[xmas1997]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it.

And no, we still aren't on equal footing. The default position is non-belief. Period. The theist is the one who makes the claim that there is a god. Therefore, the theist has burden of proof.

You brought up the study of knowledge, so let's go with that. The reason why I brought up the fact that we are all born atheists is because knowledge--justified, true, belief--is gained through logic and reasoning. When one is presented with a claim, they examine the evidence, then come to a conclusion based off said evidence. That's the best way to find out whether something is true or not. The claim is that a god exists, and the evidence doesn't support the claim. If the evidence does not support the claim, the one should not believe in that claim. If you care about what is true, you wouldn't be a theist.

I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?
In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition. Look it up if you don't believe me, I did.
I quoted it verbatim.
If you want to do it that way then your definition has no more validity than opinion, or as I said before, your own personal subjective experience. And if that is the case then it falls into the gray areas that I was referring to.

To your second argument, some of what you say is true except you leave much out. It is true, knowledge is gained "partly" through logic and reasoning, but that is not the sum total. Rather it is also gained through experience, intuition (the "hunch"), imagination (the conception of an idea), study, scientific method (replication), and the examination of evidence, etc.
And I must respectfully disagree with you when I state that the truest best way to know something is to experience it for yourself. This is why it is commonly said that experience is the best teacher. This is also why we learn the greatest lessons in life, and they make the greatest imprint upon our psyche, from our own mistakes.

My point is that neither can the theist prove his belief of the existence of God, any more than the atheist can prove his belief that there is no God.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?

1.) Words tend to be defined differently from source to source.
2.) A basic definition often doesn't capture the intricacies and baggage that comes with some terms. There are far better sources for the definition of atheism than dictionary.com.

In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition. Look it up if you don't believe me, I did.

I didn't establish myself as a source. Look at the second definition from your source. That is the definition I provided.

To your second argument, some of what you say is true except you leave much out. It is true, knowledge is gained "partly" through logic and reasoning, but that is not the sum total. Rather it is also gained through experience, intuition (the "hunch"), imagination (the conception of an idea), study, scientific method (replication), and the examination of evidence, etc.

All of which fall under logic and reasoning. Thank you for agreeing with me.

And I must respectfully disagree with you when I state that the truest best way to know something is to experience it for yourself.

And I must state that you are utterly wrong. The best way to find out the truth about something is to have independent verification. People have their own biases, delusions, etc. An independent source's corroboration is far more conducive towards discovering what is true than personal anecdotes.

My point is that neither can the theist prove his belief of the existence of God, any more than the atheist can prove his belief that there is no God.

Your point is tired and stupid. The time to believe is when there is a sufficient amount of evidence for that belief. Anecdotes mean . We aren't on the same footing. If something is true, it should be able to be verified by others. The fact that your god has not be verified means that you shouldn't believe in it. You, however, are just content with belief because it comforts you.

[xmas1997]

1.) Words tend to be defined differently from source to source.
2.) A basic definition often doesn't capture the intricacies and baggage that comes with some terms. There are far better sources for the definition of atheism than dictionary.com.
I didn't establish myself as a source. Look at the second definition from your source. That is the definition I provided.
All of which fall under logic and reasoning. Thank you for agreeing with me.
And I must state that you are utterly wrong. The best way to find out the truth about something is to have independent verification. People have their own biases, delusions, etc. An independent source's corroboration is far more conducive towards discovering what is true than personal anecdotes.
Your point is tired and stupid. The time to believe is when there is a sufficient amount of evidence for that belief. Anecdotes mean . We aren't on the same footing. If something is true, it should be able to be verified by others. The fact that your god has not be verified means that you shouldn't believe in it. You, however, are just content with belief because it comforts you.

For someone who has much to say but little to stand behind, you have given me no "facts" whatsoever, just more of your self proclaimed opinions. Opinions do not make something a fact. They are subjective in nature.

And if you want to make up your own dictionary definitions using such intangibles as "intricacies" and "baggage", then there is no common ground in fact, rather it is of your own fancy. No one can debate your fancy.
Thus you have not disputed anything I've said, rather you have strengthened my argument, which I do believe was not your intention to do.

So you are mistaken in saying I agreed with you because my own statement was obviously to the contrary.
Reread what I said. You draw erroneous conclusions at your peril.

And furthermore you create your own unverifiable definitions to suit your own unverifiable purposes.
If we are not able to begin the debate on some common ground of commonly accepted definitions then we cannot debate. It would be the same as saying I am talking about apples and you about pears.

You are welcome to thank me all you want, but the only one you are deluding is yourself.
No, instead you revert back to lame accusations in an attempt at an even lamer diversion by using "tired and stupid" as the crux of your point. These have no more merit in fact than does the price of tea in China. And are more of your opinions at best.

You had best reexamine your definitions of "logic" and "reasoning", unless you wish to make up your own definitions of those as well because any grade schooler can tell you that they are not inclusive of the modes to arrive at truth.

The only thing I agree with (pay attention) is that I quote, "we are not on the same footing", and that is about the only valid thing you have had to say IMHO, because after all, that is all you have given me so far, your opinions.
We can discuss opinions, but we certainly can't debate them. That would be illogical IMHO.

[spurraider21]

No more so than the atheist is claiming the belief that God does not exist.
You want one to go first?
Then toss a coin.
Then you can have your pro and con and your burden of proof.
It is too easy for you to say the belief "in" is more or less compelling than the belief "against."
Both are equal in assertion.

Atheists aren't making a claim. Atheism is the absence of a claim. Atheists don't "believe" that god doesn't exist. They just see no reason to believe in it

[spurraider21]

lug nuts from a Chevy would screw onto a Pontiac that doesn't mean they both evolved from a skateboard.

Similarities only confirm there was a common designer. Besides that if you was really intelligent you would not want to have any Ape in your DNA. Why are you so excited to have it?


Evolution is not a scientific law.

Darwin’s “Theory” is actually an hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).
Scientific disagreement

There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
Evolution is “pseudo-science”

Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1997, p. 52).

Gravity is also a theory

[xmas1997]

Atheists aren't making a claim. Atheism is the absence of a claim. Atheists don't "believe" that god doesn't exist. They just see no reason to believe in it

Spurraider, it would be nice to say that, and if it were true, or at least the dictionary definition, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but the fact is that it isn't. I quoted the definition of both atheist and theist.
You have only to take it or leave it.
It is what it is.
Maybe you would prefer gnostic versus agnostic instead?
In either case you are stating "your opinion" of an established definition.

[mouse]

Gravity is also a theory

There are Two Types of Theory

Scientific Theories and Unscientific Theories

[mouse]

What does your research say?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Theists are no more putting forth the claim that there "is" a God, than atheists are claiming that there "isn't" one.
So the real truth is they neither have the burden of proof, or if you prefer, disproof.
Just because you say they do does not make it so. And the same is true that just because they may say it does, equally does not make it so.

Philosophy minor that is clueless in logic or is he just full of ?

You do not have a burden to prove a negative. Thus they call the two sides of an argument the affirmative and the negative. The affirmative has the burden of proof. Welcome to human culture.

The Christian god has been thoroughly disproven to the point where you have people disavowing what it says and making up to subs ute.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.

And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.

And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

We do not accept your label. We are claiming that there is no basis for the belief and we default to skepticism.

Take your label and shove it up your ass.

[Woo Bum-kon]

And if you want to make up your own dictionary definitions using such intangibles as "intricacies" and "baggage", then there is no common ground in fact, rather it is of your own fancy. No one can debate your fancy.

Again, look at the second Dictionary.com definition of atheism. I didn't make up my own definition of anything.

So you are mistaken in saying I agreed with you because my own statement was obviously to the contrary.
Reread what I said. You draw erroneous conclusions at your peril.

Wrong. Experience, intuition, imagination, examination, and replication all directly relate to logic and reasoning, so you trying to set them apart makes no sense.

And furthermore you create your own unverifiable definitions to suit your own unverifiable purposes.
If we are not able to beginthe debate on some common ground of commonly accepted definitions then we cannot debate. It would be the same as saying I am talking about apples and you about pears.

Apparently, the first definition of atheism that you come across is the only definition there is, and anybody who uses a slightly different definition is making up their own definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lack...ef%20in%20gods

i didn't make up anything.

You had best reexamine your definitions of "logic" and "reasoning", unless you wish to make up your own definitions of those as well because any grade schooler can tell you that they are not inclusive of the modes to arrive at truth.

Already addressed this. Logic and reasoning shaped the scientific method. Logic and reasoning tells one to draw from experience. Logic and reasoning are directly related to finding out the truth.

The only thing I agree with (pay attention) is that I quote, "we are not on the same footing", and that is about the only valid thing you have had to say IMHO, because after all, that is all you have given me so far, your opinions.
We can discuss opinions, but we certainly can't debate them. That would be illogical IMHO.

You having no good reason to believe in a god is not just a mere opinion. You have none and you have presented none so far. Are you going to keep pretending that I am making up definitions and not providing proof that a god exists?

[Woo Bum-kon]

Spurraider, it would be nice to say that, and if it were true, or at least the dictionary definition, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but the fact is that it isn't. I quoted the definition of both atheist and theist.
You have only to take it or leave it.
It is what it is.
Maybe you would prefer gnostic versus agnostic instead?
In either case you are stating "your opinion" of an established definition.

This dude really thinks that the first bare bones definition from dictionary.com is the only definition of atheism there is. First of all, dictionary.com is not the first and last authority on what atheism is. It is not an infallible source that overrides every other source. Second, the second definition matches exactly the one I provided.

Not only are you being extremely stupid by accepting the first definition of a word that you come across, you are being extremely lazy by not even bothering to read the second one from your own source.

[RandomGuy]

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.

And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.

And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

... and all I have to do to sidestep that is simply reject the claim that there is a God.

Your concept of atheist “belief” is flawed.

You may use the dictionary to define something, but the problem with that is that dictionaries tend to follow the generally understood meanings of words, and there is something of a lag, and it is quite possible for the general meaning to be flawed as well.

I reject the dictionary definition, as would a lot of people who call themselves atheist.

An atheist is simply someone who has rejected the claim “God exists”.

I don’t have the burden of proof for that, it is simply the logical default, until a reasonable amount of evidence supports that. There is none.

Now, if you want to shoehorn me, or any other atheist into the “but you BELIEVE there is no God” that is your logical fallacy, i.e. a strawman. There is a spectrum of opinion even within the loose grouping of atheists.

I can’t, and won’t try to disprove “God exists”. That is simply trying to prove a negative, and that is generally silly, as you well know. There are atheists who will argue there is no God, and they have a burden of proof that they cannot meet either.

I have no burden of proof, please stop trying to say any atheist does. I have now given you enough information for a rational person to abandon that claim, without qualifying it markedly.

You are simply wrong here. Either you are rational enough to admit that, and can learn from that mistake, or you are not.

[RandomGuy]

In short:

An online dictionary cannot tell you what I believe. Only I can do that.

Fallacy: Straw Man

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[xmas1997]

This dude really thinks that the first bare bones definition from dictionary.com is the only definition of atheism there is. First of all, dictionary.com is not the first and last authority on what atheism is. It is not an infallible source that overrides every other source. Second, the second definition matches exactly the one I provided.

Do I now?
Seems to me you are engaging in a deliberate attempt to dissemble the facts in order to justify your argument instead of facing the fact that you cannot win an argument based purely upon opinions.

And now typically Fuuzzy has chimed in with his deliberate "baiting" tactics again hoping to show he may be somewhat intelligent, but cannot face the fact that insults do not, nor will they ever, be conducive to a proper debate, nor endow one with innate intelligence. Rather it is the common tactic of the pseudo-intellectual.

But since you brought it up, let's examine the definitions to see if you are right.
Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(Dictionary.com)

Let's take another.
Atheism: in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,
in a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
(Wikipedia)

So how many do I have to go through before you realize what I have been saying?
Is your only intention to sidetrack the issue?
Shall I continue?

Logic: it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity,
it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof.
(Wikipedia)

But let's get another one.
Logic: 1. the science that investigates the principals governing correct or reliable inference,
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation,
3. the system or principals of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study,
4. reason or sound judgement, as in utterances or actions,
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness.
(Dictionary.com)

Do you want more?
Where does it end, where it meets your particular definition? That is absurd.
I took the most concise definition available, but that did not suit you, so you chose to obfuscate the issue.

Should I define "Reasoning" for you as well?
No, because unless you agree to some common ground, as I stated before, we are debating "opinions", there can be no clear cut definitive outcome unless you debate "facts", which you still fail to produce.

I will give you one thing though, you have successfully sidetracked the topic of this thread.

Not only are you being extremely stupid by accepting the first definition of a word that you come across, you are being extremely lazy by not even bothering to read the second one from your own source.

This, above, is a clear cut example of how you debate or discuss an issue, slinging insults for lack of facts, and subs uting "opinions" instead of "facts".
These are Fuuzzy' tactics, and they do not fly in a true discussion or debate.
Go back and try again.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I didn't obfuscate , moron. I stated the simplest definition of atheism there is, then you tried to argue that the only real definition of atheism is the first one found on dictionary.com. You were wrong.

Now I don't even know what kind of stupid point you are trying to make. The scientific method was formed through logic and reasoning. It is not independent of it; it is a result of it. And like I said before, if you wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't be a theist, because the god claim has not satisfied it's burden of proof. It simply is not a matter of opinion. The way to discover the truth is by examining the evidence, then working our way to a conclusion. That's not an opinion. The theist has not practiced a sufficient amount of skepticism.

If I am wrong, then prove it by presenting adequate evidence for the existence of your god. If you can't, then you have no reason to believe.

[spurraider21]

There are Two Types of Theory

Scientific Theories and Unscientific Theories

scientific would be study of fossil records, genetic research, etc.

unscientific would be "but the big book says so!"

[xmas1997]

Plus there is much validity in evolution theory, however, much of it cannot be replicated using scientific method.
Even so, that does not make it false.
Glad we are back on topic.

[xmas1997]

We do not accept your label. We are claiming that there is no basis for the belief and we default to skepticism.

Take your label and shove it up your ass.

I didn't obfuscate , moron. I stated the simplest definition of atheism there is, then you tried to argue that the only real definition of atheism is the first one found on dictionary.com. You were wrong.

Now I don't even know what kind of stupid point you are trying to make. The scientific method was formed through logic and reasoning. It is not independent of it; it is a result of it. And like I said before, if you wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't be a theist, because the god claim has not satisfied it's burden of proof. It simply is not a matter of opinion. The way to discover the truth is by examining the evidence, then working our way to a conclusion. That's not an opinion. The theist has not practiced a sufficient amount of skepticism.

If I am wrong, then prove it by presenting adequate evidence for the existence of your god. If you can't, then you have no reason to believe.

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.
(Benjamin Franklin)

[xmas1997]

Philosophy minor that is clueless in logic or is he just full of ?

You do not have a burden to prove a negative. Thus they call the two sides of an argument the affirmative and the negative. The affirmative has the burden of proof. Welcome to human culture.

The Christian god has been thoroughly disproven to the point where you have people disavowing what it says and making up to subs ute.

When it's (the soul's) gaze is fixed upon an object irradiated by truth and reality, the soul gains understanding and knowledge and is manifestly in possession of intelligence. But when it looks toward that twilight world of things that come into existence and pass away, it has only opinions and beliefs which shift to and fro, and now it seems like a thing that has no intelligence . . .
(Plato)

[xmas1997]

Wrong. Experience, intuition, imagination, examination, and replication all directly relate to logic and reasoning, so you trying to set them apart makes no sense.
i didn't make up anything.

There are two modes of knowledge, through argument and experience. Argument brings conclusions and compels us to concede them, but it does not cause certainty nor remove doubts in order that the mind may remain at rest in truth, unless this is provided by experience.
(Roger Bacon)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.
(Benjamin Franklin)

We are telling you what our position is. What our interpretation of the word means. Pretty much every 'atheist' on the planet takes this same position yet you feel obligated to label what they think as something else. Given that your quote is the ultimate in irony.

Like I said take your pigeonholing label and try and learn a different perspective. Otherwise shove your strawman up your ass.

[xmas1997]

We are telling you what our position is. What our interpretation of the word means. Pretty much every 'atheist' on the planet takes this same position yet you feel obligated to label what they think as something else. Given that your quote is the ultimate in irony.

Like I said take your pigeonholing label and try and learn a different perspective. Otherwise shove your strawman up your ass.

Hmm, so you are saying that not only am I full of , but so are Benjamin Franklin, Roger Bacon, and Plato, among other great thinkers?
Let's quickly examine your contentious and fallacious post, shall we?
I wasn't labeling anything or anyone.
I was quoting recognized authorities on the word "atheism".
More of your pseudo-intellectualism on display.
You are the guys who were making up your own definitions as if you were both authorities.
The record of posts will show and prove this.
Maybe you should go to work for Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or Wikipedia, since apparently you think you know more than they do.