Why I left atheism and people like you
Offline Let me first start off by saying that I have no desire to be part of this group. I'm simply posting this to state something important.
Reading the posts that you people put here every day has reminded me of why I left atheism.Let me put it to you simply: you're bullies. You people enjoy ridiculing, and accusing anyone of having faith or belief delusional. Let me give you ll a reality check. A true atheist does not bully, or call people who have beliefs names. A true atheist, which you people are not, shows respect to those who have faith or dogma. They can disagree, but to attack them just shows how vile you people are as human beings. As a psychology major, let me give you some words of advice: attacking believers the way you do just shows that you yourselves are uncomfortable of your beliefs. You attack people who believe because deep down, you have a little belief, but don't want to admit it. That's probably the same for the people the people that you look up to (i.e. Sam Harris).
Let me give you a few points:-None of you have pr oven that God doesn't exist. You may have been successful in finding major flaws in the God of faith, but none of you, no matter how much you say it, has pr oven that God does not exist.
-Believing in God isn't the problem, religion is. I do agree with all of you that religion is a corruption element of the human psyche. Religion keeps people from being able to have an open mind. God, however, is not bad. Believing in God is a fun and exciting prospect. Science has not found all the answers, so saying their is no God just shows that you have ignorance.
-The "Four Horsemen," or the four most notorious atheists in the world, have not pr oven that God does not exist. The only thing they have succeeded in doing is proving how corrupt religion. You can choir about them all you like, but they have no evidence that their is no God.
-Atheists need faith. You can deny that fact all you like (God, I sound like you people now), but it's true. You need faith that science will find all of the answers.
-Science does not have all of the answers, and has, believe it or not, not been able to prove a lot things. I have heard scientists ADMIT that they have seen things that they were never able to define.
-There is not evidence that God has any interest in, or any connection to religion. Religion is nothing more than an opinion on what God is to a group of people. Not only that, but not every religion in the world believes in a monotheistic called God. For example, Buddhism has atheistic elements.
-The bible, or the babble as you people like to put it, is not a bad book. I have see the bible give countless amounts of joy and comfort to people, especially in time of death.
-There is no evidence that the soul does not exist. Again, science has not yet found all of the answers. Science still has not yet figured out all of the mysteries regarding the human brain.
-Dawkins, who I greatly respect for his intelligence (I am planning on reading The Selfish Gene), has not proven that their no God. In fact, I have heard Dawkins many times say that the question of the EXISTENCE of a God is a scientific question (relating back to what I said before about there being no evidence of God having any connection to religion).Oh, I do believe in evolution by the way.
-You have no proof that their is no afterlife. You can say that there isn't all you like, but you know just as well as I do that you have no proof.
-Putting all of your hope in science is a very blind thing to do. Having spiritually in your life is a healthy and great thing to have. Believing in the unknown and the supernatural makes life more exciting and interesting.
Based on these statements, I, in my opinion, feel that you people are wasting your time. You can say there isn't a God all you like, but at the end of the day, you know just as well as I do that you have no proof.
I left atheism for the simple reason that I was tired of being around people who were so closed minded. You say that theists are closed minded, but when I really look at the big picture I feel that atheists, especially strong ones (which I imagine that most of you are) fall under the same category.
I'm happy I had the ability to do what Flew did, and do a 360 on my beliefs. Now that I left atheism, I finally realize just how miserable I was.
I don't care what you people think of me. You can call me a moron, delusional, or idiot all you want. Enjoy the rest of your lives. Hopefully, you take what I've said into consideration. P.S. Please delete my account. I have no desire knowing I'm connected to this site in anyway.
- Login to post comments
And people like you are why I left kindergarten!!!
...Oh, no, wait. I think I just grew up.
...The ability to see a frozen waterfall?
Uh, I hate to break your heart my sweetie, but that ability might be a tad more widespread than you think.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
"I'm happy I had the ability to do what Flew did"
Become a senile deist that had a book written about him by a fraudster?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Although you are probably not going to reply (maybe I'm wrong)....
- You can't prove a negative... which is essentially what you are asking for in most of your points (God/afterlife)
- I have no faith in thinking science will uncover every secret, only trust in the scientific method for its power to help us understand reality.
- I am very excited living my life as a physicalist, but if I was shown to be wrong I wouldn't say my view was right because of how exciting it was.
- I don't remember bullying anyone
- What kind of faith do I need? (I am usually fine with admitting I have no clue about something sans evidence)
I'm sorry that you don't want to be logical anymore, but I'll reason for you!
Hugz
To the OP, those hugs are NOT free
You win.
Poor Flew. He did such excellent work with the Human Genome Project. I've got to try and be nicer when talking about him.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I'm willing to match prices with my competitors!
I also have extensive training in my field, nearly 20 years in practice!
I'm sure you've heard this already, but you can't generalize all atheists into a certain behavior, the only thing common in atheists is a lack of belief in a god or gods. The true atheist thing is a No true scotsman fallacy but it doesn't even matter since atheism doesn't and can't by definition dictate some sort of common behavior.
Horrid non-sequitur. I don't know about all atheists, since unlike you I don't try to throw them into a group, but many that I know attack other people's beliefs because those people try to impose those beliefs on other people. One of the most stupid imposements might be the ''God hates fags'' crowd.
Because proving the non-existence of anything is impossible, much less of something that we cannot know anything about by definition.
Nooooo. No one is claiming that they're 100% sure that there is no God. Just that with no evidence it would be irrational to accept such a claim. And I agree that if no one tried to impose their religion on other people then there would be no problem.
No. I personally hope that science finds all the answers, though ''finds all the answers'' is a very vague statement.
I think this is obvious. Your point?
Agreed. But there's no evidence that there's any god that could have interest or connection to a religion anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean by bad. Immoral? You might wanna look again if this is what you're implying. It condones rape, murder, infanticide, slavery, etc.
There is no evidence that the ''soul'' exists either.
Well, I do not claim Darwin has done that. And I really hope no one has made that claim to you either.
Well golly, how do you suppose we prove that.
side note: wouldn't the existence of a ''soul'' be a prerequisite?
For some people. And again I have no problem with that as long as people don't try to impose their superstitions on other people.
Proving the non-existence of anything is not very easy.
You started believing in a god because people around you were close-minded?
Ok-doki. Oh well, enjoy your life as well.
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
Why is it that I feel you are full of crap?
...Oh, it's because of the claim of exclusivity and "true atheism" which you define as your own little subgroup. I see. That and your reference to only one religion makes it pretty clear you are just a typical christian doing a poor job of following logic like all the ones I have to deal with on a daily basis here in the U.S. There you go Mr. "true christian". Not like all the other christians, because you have the exclusive REAL truth.
Bye! :3 Don't fall down a well, slip into a gutter, or get pinned under under a trailer trying to steal cable to watch NASCAR or anything.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Ah, It's okay.
I'll toss him a coupon. This time.
Everybody's ship has to come in some day.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Aww, if I knew I was gonna be the only that was gonna play nice I might have done things differently.
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
Science is unlikely to find "all the answers", but it is the only process by which we progressively get closer to actual truths about reality, whereas religious faith has nothing but wishful speculation.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Well, ClockCat was pretty mean, if it's any consolation. Insinuating that the OP not only watches NASCAR, but likes it enough to steal cable for it?
That's the kind of bitchslap that leaves you sleeping on your other side for a week.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Yeah.
But that's why I got the power:
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
True atheist?
Hi there, You've indicated that you're not sticking around, that's fine, but just in case you've decided to hear out our responses to this before you go...
I'm a theist and a happily contributing member of this group for almost 2 years. In that time I've encountered occasional snideness, yes, and some individuals get a bit ahead of themselves on the high horse (quirky mixed metaphor for those whom it amuses), yes... However.. in my opinion, if anything is remarkable about attitude in this group it's the degree of good attitude that you'll find from the atheist individuals here. I am genuinely impressed with the time and thought that atheist members put into responding seriously to the arguments they're presented with.
I like most of the people here, but that may be because my expectations are more realistic than those you're indicating that you have. For example there is no way you can define a "true atheist" as a person who doesn't bully others. Behaviour toward others isn't defined by atheism, it's defined by other things. Atheism just defines that the person does not believe in God or believes there is no God.
Finding major flaws in some God of Faith may well stand as evidence that such a God cannot logically exist. Or evidence that even if it did exist you can give compelling reason to reject claims of its benevolence, potency, sentience... etc.
It's widely acknowledged here that attempting to prove a negative proposition is a fools pursuit, but there are other important arguments to be had, right? Given your dark view of religion can I assume you agree?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
hmm, apparently he isn't coming back. They usually do.
But this really concerned me.
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
I wouldn't let it.
I'm sure he 'left atheism' in exactly the same way as I just left Tralfamadore.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I bet you he came from a christian website to try and vent his anger at losing an argument, and thinks that posing will give him automatic credibility and everyone will take his words on faith.
Too many christians, not enough lions.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Hmm.
Wait a minute, whose side is Eloise on anyway?
Probably the side that notices a random person doing a hit and run without merit.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Lol, true atheist.
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
I don't think many people are really that bothered if anyone believes in god or not (that rightly is a private matter) what people care about is the poision of religion.
That truely destroys lives both those who are religious and those who are not.
I don't think there is a word in the English language for people who are dedicated to fighting religion, secularism is keeping it out of politics.
As for 'respecting someone believes' , that is something I will never ever do. I try to treat all human beings no matter how loony with respect but I will never give their ideology any respect (even if I agree with it).
A belief is either right , wrong , don't know or dont care but you can't respect an belief regardless
Just how the fuck are we bullies? We come on the fucking internet and chat, mostly with each other, about shit we think is ruining the world for ourselves and future humans and potentially other species. I haven't gotten one thin dime's worth of lunch money in the process, and if I have any coming to me, I think I'm going to take it from ToLookBeyond, right after I hang him up by his gym shorts in the girl's bathroom.
Seriously, if you have a problem, handle it like a man. State a premise, ask some probing questions, cite some sources (quoting the actual views of this site might be a good start) and for the sake of your own meager testicles, stick around to argue your points! We may or may not be bullies, but with this cowardly behavior of yours, you've confirmed to me that you're halfway to being one yourself (a coward is the bechamel in this equation and a bully is the sauce mornay).
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
I was this close to rolling the little bitch for lunch money.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm sometimes snide, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes impatient, sometimes grumpy, and often dismissive. I can't recall ever being a bully.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
A berate-n-run post. What good is it to the poster or the readers?
I suspect the psychology rests in the poster's fears. His or her need to repeat "you have not disproved X" screams of it. We all know how absurd the argument is, after all unicorns and leprechauns and the Easter bunny have not been disproven either, but it is an argument of solace for folks trying to maintain a belief they know to be untenable.
Berating folks a bullies anyone who has posted disagreement (especially well-argued disagreement) speaks also to the OP's fears.
And, of course, the big irony: The psychology major OP lets us know that we're projecting. Of course, all the evidence of projection exists in the OP, as I describe above.
It's too bad the OP won't be back to engage in discussion, because I suspect so long as he or she keeps trying to believe in things they know aren't likely to be so, that internal conflict will stand in the way of contentment.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
First off, if you ever were an educated atheist, which I doubt, you would know the fallacy of "true" called the "true scottsman fallacy".
This is a website, one of thousands of atheist websites. This is merely one. And not all of the posters at this site use the same approach in dealing with theists.
What you call "bullying" many here call fighting back. If anything has bullied this world throughout history religion has. Dark Ages, slavery, witch hunts, subjugation of women, genocide of Native Americans. That is bullying.
You think it is right for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to blame 9/11 on all outside their fundy clubs? You think it is right for the Pope to get involved in American politics, or give medical advice when he isn't even a doctor?
You think it is ok for science classes to be turned into Star Trec Harry Potter myth by treating creationism as equal to evolution?
BTW, you are an idiot to reject, not just on the issue of religion, but any issue in your life, based on a mere emotional reaction.
Viewing us as "bullies" is not a good reason to reject the position.
FOR EXAMPLE:
If Galileo went around shouting, "YOU ARE ALL FUCKING IDIOTS, THE EARTH IS A GLOBE, IT IS NOT FLAT".
Does his delivery constitute him being wrong?
Everyone here are all individuals, which you should treat us as. We all have different approaches to theists. Lumping us all as all being part of a collective Borg, is absurd.
I can safely say that all the atheists here that I have had personal contact with over the years WOULD NOT leave anyone bleeding on the street. Being blasphemous does not mean we lack empathy.
Political correctness are what fascists want. Hitler and Iran have the commonality of demanding that you blindly follow them and do not offend them.
Now, if you are a hit and run poster, you are an intellectual coward, atheist or not. You say you were once an atheist, now you believe.
Fine, we are not interested in your lectures on how we should behave. You are no one's boss. If you have evidence for the god you believe in present it.
Thomas Jefferson valued blasphemy and dispised taboos.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816,"
"The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820,"
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823,"
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787."
"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
Hambi, don't lie. I have you on video with leading a gang of atheists beating up Christians leaving a Church. Your gang was armed with billy clubs and brass nuckles and tazers.
I BET YOU EVEN CHEERED WHEN BAMBI'S MOTHER WAS SHOT!
"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
You're thinking of Francis Collins, not Antony Flew.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I don't have to prove god doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on the believer.
Who said science has all the answers? it just has the better ones. and what's so fun about being threatened with eternal damnation if you don't fall in the favor of a fickle overlord?
i don't believe any of the "four horsemen" have ever declaired god's non-existence as an absolute. i do know that they have challenged and debunked the majority of "evidence" supporting god's existence.
Sorry, not true. Ridiculous, cliche and funny, but not true. there are millions of questions i'll never know the answer to in my lifetime, and i don't need to know. i'm still happy, and still an atheist. religion is for people who want an answer so badly that they will accept any answer, even one that's ridiculous and and blatantly implausable.
really? is there actually anyone out there that does think that science has all the answers? if it did, scientists would be lining up for unemployment checks. again, religion attracts folks who want a quick answer, regardless of how silly and wrong it is. science tends to appeal to folks who want the correct answer, regardless of how long it takes to find.
i would say that god probably has an "interest" in religion, at least in wiping out the "false" ones. oh, and casting into hell anyone who doesn't partake of his.
it's easy to get comfort from the bible when you pick and choose the verse, less so if you actually read the whole book, which hardly any christians have ever done.
again, the teapot-around-mars argument. you want everyone to believe, YOU prove it. science doesn't have all the answers, it's an open ended contract. (yawn)
you're just recycling points, now, aren't you. oh, well, i guess it's good that you're going green.
really into the recycling, huh? are you sure you were ever really an atheist?
believing in the supernatural IS exciting, just ask those ghost hunter guys, or that guy and gal from the x-files. very, very exciting.
you're right, i have no proof there isn't. and you have no proof there is. so i have no reason to believe, and you have a lot of evidence collecting to do.
the problem is, you really didn't say anything at all..
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
So I'm the only bully here? Man, that doesn't do much for the argument that we're all bullies.
But seriously, give me your lunch money. I'm hungry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfnftRIHxZE
6:40
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
If so, this indicates atheists have the power to push the believers around. Is this a residual effect you have of non-belief that is the little bit of doubt you pushed to the far reaches of a back corner of your mind? In reverse of a believer I consider it important to show believers why their beliefs are delusional. This doesn't mean they are only they have delusional concepts for a life operating system.
An atheist is only one that does not believe in a god, no more. I've never read Harris so I have no basis to consider if he should be looked up to.
None of you conversely has proved that any god exists only that people have misconstrued that which that didn't understand to an entity they choose to call a god. If you are truly open to beliefs of gods then Zeus or Enki is the only true god and you may have misunderstood the Greeks or the Sumerians in their presentation of the true facts.
God is a very bad idea. It allows people to avoid responsibility for their own actions because God will forgive them for their murder death kills thus justifying anything.
Gods are fun alright because they are above the rules and can fulfill the needs of man's need to know is there nothing more.
I've never read any books by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Dennett.
Nope. Science will always seek answers but since the Universe is so vast it's not very likely all will ever be known.
Science is the search for answers and understanding. Theism attributes everything to a god did it and avoids understanding.
That all depends on which god you mean. Yahweh seemed to have much interest in specific laws and rules his chosen people should follow. Allah also has set rules for those that follow his way.
Religion is group adherence to various god did it explanations and implementations of rules they have devised.
Paganism have many gods as do the Hindus with really fun stories that are far more exciting than any monotheistic god.
As a book it is neither inherently bad nor morally good it is when it is interpreted as a reality based account of a god's actions and relationship with his chosen people that problems begin. Sci-Fi books and myths can be fun books to read but considering Hercules' adventures as depicted by Kevin Sorbo to be actual reality is avoidance of reality and substitution of fantasy.
There is no evidence that Superman does not exist and works in secret only zooming in to perform/prevent certain disasters and leaving no trace as he can change time.
This is just a rationalization that there must be something more because there just must be. You'd think with the billions upon billions of people that have existed that at least one would leave a trace.
I agree. One day the super high tech civilization that started this science project will come back to harvest the resources of our planet.
Yeah, but I have Sundays free.
Perhaps you need glasses.
Don't you mean a 180?
If you didn't care you wouldn't have made this statement at all.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)
If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?
This isn't true. Consider the following:
1. The library is not open Sundays
2. Today is Sunday
3. Therefore, the library is not open
There are plenty of ways to give both evidence and arguments to support a negative claim. Perhaps you will go to the library and see, or look up its open and closed times on the internet.
In mathematics, there are proofs to show a negative claim. For example, you can prove that there is no rational number whose square is 2.
Just believing a negative claim (eg, that God does not exist) does not absolve you of your responsibility to have reasons for your belief. Such a maxim ("you can't prove a negative" ) is popular amongst atheists, but false - you ought to re-evaluate any beliefs or arguments that you've formed over the years that depend on this maxim.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.
=
LOL.
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
Thus the clip from Last Action Hero in post 31. Start it at 6:40.
Funny thing, though: Anthony Flew actually did a kind of 360 on his beliefs. Of course, most people think the last 180 was due entirely to late-onset insanity.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Another goddamn blogger...
It's too long to be worth my time to read, and doing a very quick scan pulled out
"There is no evidence that the soul does not exist."
Another ignorant lost soul without any idea of the "burden of proof", nor any interest in it.
For the record...
I'd rather blow my head off than belong to any Borg hive, and that includes this one.
Ignorant asshole.
So? Are you complaining that a negative claim can be reworded into a positive one? I fail to see how such a thing is a problem for my argument. What if I made the claim, "there is no city at location y". Does that produce less concern for you? Or even just, "there is no city y"? We can surely imagine how we might empirically verify such a claim. The fact that it's a negative claim presents no logical problem for us.
Again, so?
I considered the two ways the claim might be true - deductively, or empirically. My maths example demonstrated that it is false that you can't deductively prove a negative. My library example showed that it's false that you can't empirically demonstrate a negative.
The person I quoted did, after all, say "prove" - I was simply being generous by assuming two things he could mean by "prove".
The maxim, that you cannot prove a negative, is simply false.
I'm not interested in getting into semantic arguments of agnosticism vs atheism. My general point remains the same - if the person I quoted has any beliefs whose confidence depends on the maxim he stated, he should reconsider those beliefs.
You weren't referring to the two claims as agnosticism and atheism, respectively, were you?
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
No.
There is no group of eight tiny reindeer that fly one night of the year with a sleigh in tow.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Based on her past posts I'd say she's on the side of reason. I'm not sure why she has a theist badge. I've never seen her say anything that would indicate such. A deist sure, but I don't quite see her being a theist. Have I just missed her expressing her theist side?
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
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Let's revisit the maxim: "you cannot prove a negative".
There are two ways my counterexample may have gone wrong:
a) I may have failed to give a negative claim
b) I may have failed to show that this negative claim was "demonstrated" (erroniously: "proved"
You haven't demonstrated I've failed at either of these.
I don't see the point in your request. I have demonstrated that the maxim "you can't prove a negative" is false. Even if hypothetically you could find an instance of a negative claim that couldn't be proven, my refutation of the maxim would still hold true. All that would show as true is the claim that, "you cannot prove some negatives".
Let me repeat, perhaps different words will help. The person I originally responded to made the claim that you cannot prove a negative. There are two ways this claim could be false - deductively, and empirically. You could potentially succeed in proving deductively a negative claim, or you could succeed in empirically demonstrating a negative claim.
Bear in mind that the word "prove" is a poor choice. Empirical truths are never proven. So from an empirical standpoint, the claim that "you cannot prove a negative" is in fact trivially true. But so is the claim, "you cannot prove anything", if we restrict ourselves to the realm of empirical enquiry.
I was being charitable, and assuming both strongest possible interpretations of the maxim. The maths example may be irrelevent to your reading of the maxim, but it's not irrelevant to all readings. I'm wanting to destroy its credibility, no matter which way you consider it.
Says who? The definition of "empirical" includes that which is verifiable or provable from experiment, and as far as I know this is a meaning that is generally understood and accepted, even by people otherwise deluded about reality - or at least if not then we're all in big shit when it comes to relying on science for anything. Remind me not to drive anywhere today.
Can you expand on why you said what you did. Exactly in what sense are "empirical truths never proven".
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I'd keep the bravado in check - not sure what you mean by "people otherwise deluded about reality". This is your opportunity to learn something new:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
The word proof is typically reserved for something that demonstrates that the thing in question cannot possibly be false. In other words, we know enough now to be certain that we will never be mistaken. This only really occurs in the area of logic and mathematics.
If it's possible you are mistaken, no matter how unlikely, you don't have a proof.
I just realised I should be a bit kinder in my reply, and explanation. Proofs are for logic and mathematics. When we talk in science, we talk about evidence, demonstrating things. Eg, there is a great deal of evidence for our equation handling the gravitational force between objects. This is well established, but not proven. It is theoretically possible for us to be mistaken, though it seems very unlikely.
This is the nature of empirical research. Our confidence in a theory or fact can get stronger and stronger with more confirmations, but it is never proven. There need be just one instance where it is wrong for our understanding to be toppled. Indeed, classical physics was well evidenced for quite a while, but now we know it to be false (though very accurate and useful for larger bodies). Newton's gravitational laws alone could not completely account for the orbits of planets, though it was very close.
Having a proof means it is logically impossible for you to be mistaken about the thing proven.
Empirical evidence just means that the conclusion is highly probable.