Thread 16778013

What I'm saying is: it's not your job to disprove religion. The burden of proof is within those making the claims, theists. If someone is asserting the existence of a god, it's up to them to provide the evidence. Big claims require big evidence.

Asking cliche or emotionally charged questions such as "If God good why do bad thing happen" That line of questioning plays into their framework, where they can just give vague justifications. Keep the focus on demanding clear, logical, and evidence based answers for their claims.

That´s how the process of proving any theory is, entertaining baseless theory is a waste of time.

>>16778013 (OP)
this is sci faggot
take your discussion to pol or reddit or whatever

>>16778013 (OP)
>Big claims require big evidence.
"big" is a subjective word. What your small mind considers "big" news is just a petty fetter to mine. Claims simply require the proof to back them up. How you feel about the size of the claim holds zero relevance

>>16778013 (OP)
Burden of proof does not equal obligation to debate.
The burden of proof is on the one trying to convince the other.

>>16778013 (OP)
I am sorry, but can you demonstrate how a bunch of farting brain chemicals necessitates a moral imperative for truth?

>>16778013 (OP)
>religion vs science thread
Go back to 2010 friend

>>16778106
Well maybe the word shouldn't have been big but extraordinary. If a claim that defies all established knowledge and is extremely rationally unlikely such as the existence of a god and all that entails (miracles and whatnot) is made then the more rigorous, material and extraordinary the evidence should be.

All claims need evidence but the amount and quality of that evidence should scale with the claim's extra ordinariness

>>16778013 (OP)
You can't reason with the religious. You can't reason people out of something they never used reason to get to. They either don't care that it's fake and cling to it for social, political, or some other purpose or are simply not intelligent enough to use reason to form a worldview. It's like trying to tell a person with mental illness to just get over it. You can do it, but you're not going to make much headway there.

>>16778161
And what evidence do you have to support this extraordinary claim about a burden of evidence?

>>16778200
Having more than 60iq usually does it

>>16778207
And having more than 100 IQ usually takes care about recognizing God so...

>>16778207
So you are saying you being functionally retarded is the only exception from your claim?

>>16778228
>>16778229
Keep wordplaying instead of addressing the actual point

>>16778250
You made a claim about epistemology, but your claim isn't supported by the very same epistemology it asserts.

>>16778258
The principle of burden of proof isn't an extraordinary claim it's a foundational norm in both simple logic and epistemology. It's not something that needs to be proven in the same way a claim about the supernatural does it's the framework within which claims are assessed. If someone claims X, they must present supporting evidence for X

If you're rejecting burden of proof as a standard, then you're implying anyone can assert anything without evidence and be taken seriously.

This is the 101 of the scientific method why are you even in this board?

>>16778013 (OP)
It's a simple binomial. Asserting that a specific god exists is a positive claim on one thing with no possible proof. Asserting that no god or gods exist is a positive claim on 2^n things with no possible proof. Atheism is, by definition, both the least likely and the most pointless of all religious convictions.

>>16778268
The burden of proof is not the thing in question. I am making no rejections of anything. You have unironically failed to satisfy the burden of proof in OPs claim with an off topic sperg moment.

>>16778268
You're pretty enamored by the concept of "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof", here's another cool concept for you're 16 year old mind: Dunning-Kruger.

>>16778185
Religion was made specifically for you.

>>16778287
Yea because you being 40 and divorced = right me being 16 = wrong

>>16778274
This shit is just filled with fallacies and non sense

Atheism is not inherently a positive claim that no gods exist its a lack of belief in gods due to absence of evidence

The idea that rejecting many gods makes atheism a claim on 2n things is using probability and logic wrong not believng in many unproven claims doesn't multiply the burden of proof it applies the same standard (lack of evidence) consistently.

Also it's not just a coin flip where you get it wrong or right. If you choose to believe in god you still have to choose the right one out of thousands

>>16778305
Can you support any of these claims?

>>16778300
Unironically that's a valid implication, and although the antecedent in this case is false, the truth value is still true.

>>16778305
Atheism is a positive claim that n things you can't prove are all false.

>>16778319
>cant prove a thing is real
>a thing isnt real
These are indistinguishable. Therefore it is logical to treat them as equivalent until such evidence comes along that can verify, in some way, that a thing exists. Otherwise I can say purple spotted hyenas are on alpha centauri. What? You can't prove me wrong so it must be true until you can prove it isn't. See why we don't use this logic that can justify any random made up shit?

>>16778323
Alpha centauri is a star. If instead you say that out of n billion planets conducive to animal life, none of them have purple spotted hyenas, your assertion is far less likely to be true than the assertion that one of them does.

>>16778325
Saying “purple spotted hyenas exist somewhere in the universe” is a positive claim that requires evidence

Saying “we have no evidence that purple spotted hyenas exist on these planets” is acknowledging lack of evidence not necessarily a positive claim they don’t exist

If someone made their whole life about how these hyenas gave a prophet this one book and that we all should follow the teachings in it you would see him as crazy

>>16778325
Yes, it's a star. You're missing the point of the analogy that we need EVIDENCE to believe something is the case. You don't start off with assuming X is true, until Y says it isn't. You can justify any nonsense that way. I can say a magical wizard lives in a galaxy far far away and made the universe. But why would anyone, or should anyone, believe a word I say if I have 0 evidence beyond "cuz i sed so n it makes sense to me bro like common sense man". Because my made up random claim is indistinguishable from someone just making shit up and lying. If you buy this logic then I have a bridge to sell you. And by your logic you must believe me until you can prove I don't.

>>16778330
Wasn't it you thay said having agreement from a 60 in retarded is sufficient?

>>16778332
Classic avoiding the argument with gay wordplay

>>16778332
No, that was a different anon. And irrelevant to anything I just said to you.

>>16778330
No, I can both not believe and not disbelieve you. To make either positive claim would be equally silly.

>>16778340
I fucked your mom in the ass. Do you not disbelieve or not disbelieve me? No. You do have an opinion on it. You have a thing you think is true or not. You just want to run to neutrality to avoid the clear problem with your logic. And it isn't gonna work. Now you can say you don't have knowledge about my claimed event. But you do have a belief regarding it. Somewhere in your head, even as ignorant and dimwitted as you are, you're evaluating "how likely is this guy to be full of shit about what he just said?"

>>16778346
Here's what you're confused about. You can divide the population where your mom lives by the population of the internet to put odds on whether I actually fucked her in the ass.

>>16778352
I cannot tell if you are coping, rage baiting or immensely retarded

>>16778356
My cat also can't tell how the food magically appears and also meows at me like you do. Do you understand how probability works?

>>16778352
That's not how you get odds by just spitballing ideas around. And by this logic there are 7 billion people. Your mom has sex since you exist. So the odds are actually great that at least one person has done so. Why not me? Because you are forming beliefs. There is no "i dont believe or not believe bro". You do. One way or another. Even if you claimed a lack of knowledge about the event, to say you have no belief at all about it is absurd. But using your amateur layman spitball probability the odds are pretty high actually. Despite it being a claim I just made up completely. This is why I said your logic fails. And why any claim of belief that X is real requires evidence. Just claims or "makes sense to me" or "idk man cuz i sed so" aren't gonna cut it.

>>16778352
>>16778356
>>16778371
Hey retards NASA called they want their butthurt back.

>>16778371
At my mom's age, less the time I was looking at her, for the odds to be even on 7 billion people, you'd have to assume continual waking and nonwaking anal sex with an ejaculation rate of less than a fifth of a second.

>>16778383
Okay. So baiting or coping. In either case your concession is accepted. I'll accept it now and spare you the indignity of looking like a complete fool and groveling further.

>>16778388
I wonder why the dumbest anons always pretend to accept imaginary concessions? A mystery lol.

>>16778134
Science can't yet explain this extremely complex and hard to research concept so my made up story where everything is explained with magic must be true

>>16778013 (OP)
OK the fate of your soul is your problem not mine lol

>>16778927
>nobody can explain lightning so Zeus throws it down
>*discovers electromagnetism*
>o-okay well what about rain? only god can send down water and...
>*discovers the hydrological cycle*
>a-a-alright but nobody can explain why things have a life and...
>*discover life is an ongoing chemical process*
>several millennia later
>nobody can prove where the universe came from
>yeah we don't know yet
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA GOT YOU BRO FUCKING CHECKMATE GAYTHEIST CLEARLY [insert favored mythological figure or magic man/force here] IS TRUE FUCK YOU LMAO XD KEK

>>16778013 (OP)
the contrarian has single handedly disproved the belief of god on the entire planet

>>16778013 (OP)
you can only gather data about god when you are tripping balls, and therefore it is pre-debunked by the scientific community.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/74L19UkAHwBG

>>16778013 (OP)
Hope you have the same attitude about things like morality. Prove morality pls

>>16778013 (OP)
SILENCE HEATHEN!
For what does thou know of GOD?
GOD makes Its will known through direct connection to those who open their souls to receive Its Wisdom!
Mathematical Salvation is found through THE ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH.
For it is ordained that the Universe is both discrete and finite, and thusly so shall be Mathematics!
Any who say otherwise shall be condemned to the FIERY PITS of HELL where naughty DEMONS shall poke their raw bottoms with pointy sticks!
"Points and lines and infinities are an abomination before GOD, so sayeth GOD ITSELF"
Amen.

>>16778962
kek

>>16778927
>science
>doesnt address the question
SAD. MANY SUCH CASES.

>burden of proof
The existence of God has been commonly accepted fact for thousands of years until 80 years ago. The burden of proof is on YOU

>>16778013 (OP)
>religion
no need to disprove that, it is a system that weaponized spirituality to control people's actions and behavior toward certain goals that religion leaders are looking for.
spirituality is still interesting in certain ways, there's some freaky stuff going on. which various religions tried to use for their purposes, weaponize is a good word for it. humans will always corrupt everything that would bring them the least bit of extra power. that is the way of the humans (prolly aliens as well)

>>16779313
>a system that weaponized spirituality to control people's actions
Such a trite meme

>>16779313
Are you eating bugs yet?

>>16779347
>>16779351
>drones say they're not drones

>>16779365
Defending nuance is not being a drone you smooth-brained troglodyte.

>>16779384
there's no nuance, that's all there is to it. you can debate about benefits which is valid but it doesn't invalidate my main point which is that assembling drones is max priority compared to anything else. thus your interjection is not honest and meant to distract from the main point

>>16778962
lol

But enough about God.
We should be asking why most /sci/ threads are obviously one post by OP who then abandons the thread.
Makes another, instantly abandons it
Makes another...

>>16779627
I'm OP and most of the messages defending the burden of proof are mine so not really the case at all

>>16778013 (OP)
shut up, nobody gives a dead moose's last fuck about this argument anymore. neither of you have evidence. there could be something that created the universe or there could not. it's not a known fact

>>16779838
So neither side has proof but one side bases their entire life and society on it like it's 100% true

>>16779754
So you are the retarded pigfucker, that's not surprising then

>>16778228
Belief in God decreases as IQ increases, and there is no inflection point where this trend reverses. In fact the correlation is exponential.