|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
I lack the non-belief in God
Posted on: April 4, 2009 - 10:48am
 Offline
I lack the non-belief in God
Therefore, the burden of proof is on atheists. I do not have to defend my position. It is up to you to prove to me that God does not exist. And if you say that you lack the lack of non-belief in God, then I will just say that I lack the lack of lack of non-belief in God. So hahahahaha.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
OK, you can be the lacky.
If you were interested in any kind of discussion or debate you would have to defend your position. Since you have made it clear that you don't care one way or the other there is no need to have any discussion with you at all. There is no burden on anyone to even notice that you have any position at all.
To be perfectly frank, I don't care what you believe or don't, feel free. Dwell in whatever dimension of reality works for you.
Since you have demonstrated that you are perfectly happy in the realm of Never Was and Never Will be.
Live Long and Prosper.
Far be it from me to try to undo the centuries of work that have gone into your conditioning.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Special wording doesn't change the fact that you hold a belief in a god.
I am confused by your use of words in an attempt to state that you believe in a god.
I hold a 'non belief in god' stance... however I am not stating "THERE IS NO GOD" Your attempt at burden of proof switcheroo has failed.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
No, I do not hold a belief in God. I hold a lack of a lack of a belief in God. So the burden is on you.
Double negatives do not allow you to skip on the burden of proof. You cancel the double negatives out to make a positive statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Okay. Right now, I am going to grade you on what you've just written.
You do not even get an F. You get an H for hypocrisy. Do not lecture me on the rudiments of the English language when you cannot even spell simple words like "burden". The funniest part is when you state, "I do not have to prove zero", which actually means that you have to prove something.
LOL
So you're a theist - whoopee.
What makes your man-created god so much better than the others?
You are smart enough to pick apart spelling and grammar - since it is clear you have an understanding of what Jeffrick wrote - are you going to address his point?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
No.
Therefore your point is irrelevent, and you fail.
pwnt.
ciarin.com
**high five**
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
So what religion are you part of? What do you believe?
Hardy har har! Jokes on us!
Nice change of subject.
I'm a pagan, specifically Roman/British heathen.
ciarin.com
Since you've left the option open of wordplay, then I define God as something which does not exist axiomatically.
Huh. Now there's no proof, it's just axiomatic.
You're right, you don't have to defend your position. You said you don't believe in the non-existence of God. How could any of us prove what you do or do not believe?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Matt, can't you just be a man for a change?
Don't make us call your pops.
Hmmm.... You got me... Whatever shall I do? It seems as though your clever use of language has somehow negated the definition inherent within. I guess all I can do is fall to my knees and pray to the holy spirit. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Did you work all day on this?
I call a Matt.
For Shame!
How DARE you evil hateful heathens denigrate this fellow's well-thought out beliefs?
For I too lack the non-belief in a paternal, angry, vengeful sky daddy who created all that we know as existence, chose one group as "special" then became enraged when they joined together two different types of thread when costuming themselves.
For Shame!
[edited clarity/spelling]
EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!
Mimicking an argument only means you have learned how to be a parrot. You still have no godsperm nor can you replicate dead human flesh surviving rigor mortis.
Here is the absurdity in your BAD use of logic.
"It must be true because you cant prove it isn't"
Ok, so anything that anyone in human history utters must be true because someone else can't prove it isn't.
So the burdon of proof is not on the Muslim who slams the plane into the building because you cant prove they didn't murder 3,000 people to save humanity from sin?
Ok, since you cant prove that I don't have an inviable snarfwidget living under my bed who makes kegs of beer for me, it must be true by default because you cant prove it doesn't exist. IT IS INVISABLE and I have "faith" that it is real, so it must be true because "faith" never lies.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well Bobby, I would not dream of asking you to defend such a position. Not out of whether it is a defensible position. Rather, because I see in your posts that you are not sure if the position is defensible or not.
Call it what you want but the church that I used to attend would call what you are going through a “crisis of the faith”. Basically, you are not sure where you stand with the whole of whatever things your church is telling you.
You know what? That is fine if that is where you are at. Many of us right here on the RRS forums were once in a similar position, myself included. So you are casting about trying to find someone who has the answers which you seek. If you are like me, you tried other churches to see if one fit you better. Perhaps you have even tried other non-christian religions to see if those had what you are looking for.
Whatever the path that brought you to us is fine. It is your path and you have had to walk it mostly alone. Even so, you have found us and you want to know if we have what you are after. However, there is one point to your posts that is obvious to me and that is that you do not know how to ask the questions that you need to ask.
Well, to be honest, stick around for a bit and we may be able to help you to learn to ask questions that will help you to get the answers that will help you with whatever you are facing.
However (and this is a big one, so take a deep breath before proceeding), one thing that we will not do is offer you proof of the non-existence of god.
Sure, you have been walking a lonely road. Probably you have had not idea where you are or where you are going and that sucked. Yet if you decide to stick with us for a time, some of us will walk that road alongside you for a while and point out the signs that will help you to orient yourself. We will also take the time to point out some of the interesting scenery along the side of the road as you travel with us.
Eventually, if you like what you see, you may decide to throw in with us and join the party. If you don't, at least you will have learned some of the things that will help you to find your way along the road that only you can travel. Either way, we are fine with that.
Perhaps you could try introducing yourself. We know your name or at least the name that you want to use here. Could you tell us a bit more about yourself? Like your age and (in a very general way) where you live? Do you have any specific hobbies? Perhaps you play a musical instrument or raise tropical fish or whatever.
That would be plenty for now. We can take it from there.
=
Just replace God with FSM.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Fixed.
Dammit's Law:
It always ends-up being about sex.
And so rises, the next great internet Meme
What Would Kharn Do?
Logically fallacious. In order to have a non-belief in something, there must first be a belief in something. In order for something to be believed in, it must be quantified. Until god is proposed, belief or non-belief in it is non-existant. Once god is proposed, it is a proposition. It must be defended. The reverse is not true.
Therefore you got this backwards.
Whether you're Matt or not, I have no doubt that someone who actually believes this will see it, and therefore I haven't wasted my time by responding. If you are Matt, however, you have indeed wasted your own.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I will call this monumentally stupid argument The Argument from "Never Learned to Read or Write So Well.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
That is a rather good point Vastet. Even if this is someone pulling a Poe on us, what we post could be seen by anyone. If it happens that any of our posts manage to strike a resonant chord in the mind of any random visitor, then the effort will not have been wasted.
=
Yeah. In case anybody missed the memo, to get through confusing language and get to the heart of the claim, you must reduce the statement to its simplest form. It's a lot like reducing terms in algebra. This is literally the first chapter in any symbolic logic textbook. You can't even begin to do logic until you learn to represent language in its simplest symbolic form.
The statement "I lack a lack of belief" can be represented thusly: "Not not belief in X." In propositional logic, "Not" is a function, represented by "~". Symbolically, it'll look llike this:
~~B
Where B stands for "Belief in X."
As in algebra, double negatives cancel. Consider that negative negative one is positive one. It can be read as "not negative one." The same principle obviously applies to logic. So, before we can address B, we must eliminate both ~'s and deal with B as it stands.
This is so basic that anyone who doesn't get it can only be described as monumentally stupid.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, if you are going to do that, then you owe us something. Since you did not, I will:
=
This concept is what keeps me sane and on the internet. lol.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I believe you mean "Never Learned to Read or Write So Good".
[edit]
I missed the musical reference. I hang my virtual head in internet shame.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Occum's (sp?) Razor.
'Nuff said.
Come on Will. He could play a guitar just like a ringin' a bell. How could you forget?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Yay I'm learning this now in college! lol
Actually, most theists' arguments can be ripped apart using symbolic logic.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Actually, you might be shocked to learn how many theists arguments aren't even arguments in the logical sense.
1. A watch has a maker.
2. ???
3. Therefore, the universe has a maker.
Sometimes, they'll try to drum up something to make it look like there's a step 2, like:
2. Everything that exists has a maker.
But you'd be surprised how many times you encounter arguments -- not just from theists -- that are missing steps. I've highlighted this in the abortion debate going on in several threads:
1. A fetus might turn into a human being if not aborted.
2. ???
3. Therefore, a fetus should not be aborted.
Another mistake that's often made in informal debate is that people use unproven premises, such as:
2. Anything that might turn into a human being should not be aborted.
Of course, that's just begging the question. It's in the form of an argument, but it's not an argument.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Actually, they might defy ANY kind of classification in the rational oeuvre.
1. A watch has a maker.
2. Ketchup is a vegetable.
3. Therefore, the universe has a maker.
or the ever popular
1. I know it to be true
3. Therefore, it is.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Thanks for the lawl.
For those of you who might be unfamiliar with what it was like being a child when Reagan was president:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence