[quote name='Machaira' timestamp='1311270400' post='4838543']
What part of "lack of evidence does not equal evidence of lack" is hard to understand? You obviously can't prove a negative. I've never said I have proof of God, but I'm not the one that made an absolute statement, implying that said statement was true, here.

If someone is going to call the Bible a fairly tale, not say they believe it's a fairy tale (yes, there's a difference), or make some other absolute statement about Christianity not being true, they should have proof. Otherwise the person is just being a hypocrite.

Of course, trolls don't need to follow rules, right?

This is absolutely ridiculous. By your logic it's impossible to state any negative statement at all without inserting "I believe".
[/quote]

Umm, use your common sense? I can't tell if you're being difficult on purpose or what.

You simply don't like the latter statement because you're in a state of self-delusion and you feel the urge to back that delusion up.

You're doing it now too.

If anyone wishes to engage in a serious debate about this topic, they're welcome to PM me.

We tried, but with all the name calling and trolling on your side it's difficult.

No, religion does not cause stupidity. Religion is a product of stupidity.

See, this is why we can't play nice, because you refuse to be unbiased and reasonable.

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1311270947' post='4838546']
We've already discussed, which you agreed with, that religion does not cause stupidity. It is not a specific instance of a more general problem. Lots of hot places are also dry. Is dryness a sub-problem of heat?

No, religion does not cause stupidity. Religion is a product of stupidity. That said, I don't think all religious people are stupid. I've converted a number of people to atheism, through discussions of this very nature.

simple logic like correlation != causation? Yea. We're really the ones struggling with that in this thread.

This is a straw man. No one has claimed that it does.
[/quote]

Dare I note the irony?

Dare I note the irony?

I think it's a lost cause.

What part of "lack of evidence does not equal evidence of lack" is hard to understand? You obviously can't prove a negative. I've never said I have proof of God, but I'm not the one that made an absolute statement, implying that said statement was true, here.

If someone is going to call the Bible a fairly tale, not say they believe it's a fairy tale (yes, there's a difference), or make some other absolute statement about Christianity not being true, they should have proof.

You don't have to say I believe. You can say, there is no evidence. However, it would be annoying, because you'd have to begin every sentence (except proved mathematical theoreme) with currently evidence suggests that... or there is no evidence that... Therefore, in everyday speech we say: 'there are no faires' or 'there is no god' which really mean: 'There is no evidence that there are faires' or 'the is no evidence that there is god'.

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1311271063' post='4838548']
This is absolutely ridiculous. By your logic it's impossible to state any negative statement at all without inserting "I believe".

Umm, use your common sense? I can't tell if you're being difficult on purpose or what.
[/quote]

Do you believe something is true until evidence shows otherwise, or do you not believe something until evidence shows it's most probably true?

Just to reiterate what Machaira told A Brain in a Vat earlier (since he apparently completely misunderstood the logic involved), when you state the following: "The bible is a book of fairy tails", you are making a positive claim and therefore the burden of proof falls upon you to justify your statement. Vat is not understanding this and is confusing it with the position of atheism, which is a rejection of the claims in the bible and does not have the burden of proof. As soon as you cross the line from "rejection" to "refutation" you've effectively shifted the burden of proof upon yourself.


Now do I believe the bible is true? No, not all of it. I think that it correctly reports a few historical events. But most of it I don't believe is true or credible. I certainly do not believe any of the supernatural claims the bible makes, such as walking on water or the zombie rave in Jerusalem. I don't go around telling people that these stories are false (which places the burden of proof on me) because I could never prove that those events did not happen. But I can point out the inconsistencies, fallacies, and claims that do not have extra-biblical support to back them up and conclude that based on this data, I do not find the bible to be a credible or reliable source of historical fact. That's what you should have done, instead of stubbornly referred to it as a "fairy tale" and then mistakenly believe that your position is immune from criticism and logical contradiction.

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1311271063' post='4838548']
This is absolutely ridiculous. By your logic it's impossible to state any negative statement at all without inserting "I believe".

Umm, use your common sense? I can't tell if you're being difficult on purpose or what.
[/quote]

Do you believe something is true until evidence shows otherwise false, or do you not believe something until evidence shows it's most probably true?
[/quote]

This depends entirely upon the claim that is being asserted. If I meet a stranger off the street and he says "Hi, my name is Bob." I would assume that his claim to be true. I don't have any reason why he would be using a false name to identify himself, and even if it were not his true name it really does not matter.

Now if Bob then says "An invisible pink unicorn orbits the Earth and protects us from evil", I would take the initial position that his claim is false. It does not mesh with reality and as of yet, no evidence has been provided to support the claim. Not to mention that the claim contains self-contradictions (how could he know that the unicorn is pink if its invisible?). This new claim still does not matter that much to me whether it exists or not.

If Bob then goes on to say "This unicorn demands that you worship it every Sunday and give 10% of your income to the church of the holy unicorn so that you can go to a magical rainbow land after you die. If you refuse, then the unicorn sends you into a pit of fire where you will burn forever in agony until the end of time", now these claims matter because he is suggesting that there is a real, imminent threat to not believing his claim. But still my default position is "I don't believe" because he has not provided any evidence or reasoned argument for why anyone should believe his claim. Furthermore, there are competing religious claims (Islam, Christianity, etc) which promise reward for belief and torture for disbelief. They can't all possibly be right, but they can all be wrong. And I should assume that none of them are true until they provide positive evidence to support their claims.

In fact, this is the most obvious fallacy in Pascal's Wager, which generally states that you should believe in the Christian god "just in case" its true and assigns a 50/50 probability to "God exists" and "God does not exist". It completely fails to account for competing religions which promise similar punishment for disbelief.

In fact, this is the most obvious fallacy in Pascal's Wager, which generally states that you should believe in the Christian god "just in case" its true and assigns a 50/50 probability to "God exists" and "God does not exist". It completely fails to account for competing religions which promise similar punishment for disbelief.

It also doesn't weigh the severity of said punishments for varying levels of belief/disbelief/belief in other deities.

[quote name='Machaira' timestamp='1311267734' post='4838517']
So you found proof that the Bible is a fairy tale book?!? Wow, can you share that proof with the rest of us?

Oh, I get it, you're just being a troll.

This is what I mean. This is why it is so incredibly frustrating for those of us who are just trying to get believers to use simple logic.

Machaira, let's try something out. Will you share proof with the rest of us that the Easter Bunny isn't real?

I'll give you a hint. You can't. You can't prove that the Easter Bunny isn't real. Could a magical omnipresent candy-laying vaguely god-related rabbit exist? I can't prove it's impossible. That's why that's not how it works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is you who has the burden of proof to show that the Easter Bunny exists, because the default answer any reasonable person comes to is "Nope, I have no reason to think it exists."

Now how is god or the bible different from the Easter Bunny? Is there more proof? Is he less magical? Is the very concept any less divergent from what we know of how the universe works by experience and logic?

Much of science is very skeptical about superstring theory and M theory because they so far fail to provide testable predictions. This is why we choose science as a means by which to define Truth. It is self-regulating. Lack of falsifiability means we don't accept this theory as true. At least superstring theory is internally consistent though. Religion can't be said to even be that.
[/quote]

Can you prove there is such thing as free will?

No.

How about love?

No.

Therefore, fairies, the Easter bunny, God, free will and love most certainly do not exist in any shape or form.

Really. No free will. In essense, there is no 'self' either. It's all an illusion. If you believe your brain is something more than dumb colliding particles, you are delusional, ignorant, and stupid. Free will is no more proven or defined than fairies and the Flying Spagghetti Monster. Actually, it is even less defined. Everyone, therefore, that believes that there is even such thing as this magical "free will" is ignorant.

Agreed or not?