Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!

[Guest]

Asimov If you believe I was out of line in what I said to you I am sorry. AS I viewed what you were stating it came across to me in a different vein.

Glow

No need to apologize, Glow. It wasn't out of line, methinks....just wrong

Asimov,

Has a truly miraculous event ever taken place? A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks

What do you mean by a miracle?

One who asserts that he knows something bears no burden of proof unless he is attempting to prove his point to another. To know what you have seen, heard and felt—as the apostles claim to have done—is to possess knowledge. There is no need for argumentation, unless one insists upon convincing another of what he knows.

To possess knowledge is not to have seen, heard or felt. Perceptions do not automatically become knowledge.

Throughout our discussion of definitions, you have assumed that an atheist merely "believes" one thing and that a theist simply "believes" another. If this is so, then, you are correct in saying that the theist would need better proofs than those provided by atheism to substantiate his beliefs—because everyone in question simply "believes" things (i.e., they have theories), and no one actually "knows" anything.

I didn't say merely or simply. Yes we "know" things, I never claimed that nobody knows anything.

What you are not aware of is the fact that some theists actually "know" God, as they can know other people (like long-term "pen-pals" who send things to each other and respond specifically to each other, but who have never seen each other face-to-face).

What you are not aware of is the fact that they believe they "know" God. That doesn't mean it's an objective fact.

I reject the definition of the burden of proof from the website you quoted. It simply does not agree with accepted procedure in assessing legal testimony. If two witnesses both say, "I saw Joe stab Bob," they are under no further obligation to prove that this occurred. They are only reporting what they saw. In such a case, the burden of proof rests upon Joe's attorney to prove that the witnesses are incompetent or liars.

No it doesn't. The witnesses in a court of law are used as corroborating evidence.

If someone says "Joe stabbed Bob", then they have to prove Joe stabbed Bob. Because they saw Joe stabbed Bob is only one piece of evidence.

People can be wrong in their perceptions, mistaken, misinterpret and also lie.

You are applying the burden of proof to a scientific model, where no one actually knows the truth, and any speculative assertion must be fully proven before accepted.

Sorry, but science doesn't prove anything. Inductive methodology cannot prove an assertion, only provide support to it.

Though you may fall back on your "purple rhino" analogy, you will only be weakening your case by doing so, and demonstrating that you have not yet grasped the nature of the inquiry. No one has yet testified to having encountered "purple rhinos on Mars"—and anyone who seriously claimed this would no doubt show various other signs of mental aberration—therefore there is no prima facie evidence for this absurdity. If there should ever arise such evidence, it would fall upon me to bear the burden of proof against it, if I had any wish to refute it.

So what if no one has testified to encounter those beings. People have testified to encountering Raelians, Witches, Vampires, Aliens, Elvis, etc.

You're applying quite the double standard here.

As for the sanity of the witnesses, if you wish to call into question the mental acuity of people like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, C. H. Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Werner von Braun, et al, you may freely do so—but not without raising serious questions about your own sanity or objectivity.

It has nothing to do with sanity, Steve.

In ascertaining the truth, it is more helpful to know what millions of people claim to know, to have seen, and to have experienced, than to know what millions of people claim not to know. The voices of a trillion people sasying "We don't know" (in a court of law, for instance), would not equal the evidential value of two people saying, "We were there, and this is what happened."

Argument from numbers...when are you going to end this logical fallacy, Steve?

[Guest]

The above should shed some illumination on the semantic argument which was cited in the beginning of this article. Their claim is that there is a big difference between asserting "I do not believe a deity exists" and "I believe a deity does not exist." Fundamentally, this argument is nothing but semantic nonsense. It is not just the splitting of thin hairs, it is the splitting of thin air. To demonstrate this, all one needs to do is just invert the argument; is the assertion "I believe a deity exists" any different from the assertion "I believe a deity does exist"? Clearly, the semantic value of such a distinction is zero ... and such is also the case for the Atheistic postulate. That they make their claim in order to avoid having to shoulder the burden of proof for their anti-theistic position is understandable: they desire to deny that God exists while, at the same time, denying that they have a burden of proof. They want Christians to prove their belief in God, but they don't want to have to prove their belief in the non-existence of God. In other words, they refuse to provide the evidence for their belief while severely criticizing Theists for failing to do the same. This is usually called "hypocrisy."

I entirely agree, SoaringEagle. This is what I've been trying to say previously in the discussion.

Thanks for the article, I think I've read it before.

[Guest]

Asimov,

I made no argument from numbers. In fact, I allow for the possibility of the same number of people speaking from both sides of the issue. If the best you can do is act like I made an argument that I did not make, then it appears to indicate that you are incapable of engaging the actual argument I presented.

My argument pertained to the innate weight of arguments, not numbers of people who assert them. What numerous people claim to have experienced may not be sufficient to prove their veracity beyond a reasonable doubt, but innumerable statements of those whose whole argument is "I don't know," provide no evidential value whatever.

I await your first presentation of anything resembling an evidential rebuttal. If you have none, then we have nothing to discuss.

[Guest]

Asimov,

You asked:

What do you mean by a miracle?

Miracle: An extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.

Awaiting your answer to the question, has a miracle ever occurred? Yes or no?

[Guest]

Asimov,

I made no argument from numbers. In fact, I allow for the possibility of the same number of people speaking from both sides of the issue. If the best you can do is act like I made an argument that I did not make, then it appears to indicate that you are incapable of engaging the actual argument I presented.

My argument pertained to the innate weight of arguments, not numbers of people who assert them. What numerous people claim to have experienced may not be sufficient to prove their veracity beyond a reasonable doubt, but innumerable statements of those whose whole argument is "I don't know," provide no evidential value whatever.

Your argument was that millions (then trillions) of people have believed in God and claim to know God. You used that as weight that God must exist.

Your second sentence is absolutely incoherent and I think has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

I await your first presentation of anything resembling an evidential rebuttal. If you have none, then we have nothing to discuss.

And evidential rebuttal of what?

[Guest]

Asimov,

You asked:

What do you mean by a miracle?

Miracle: An extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.

Awaiting your answer to the question, has a miracle ever occurred? Yes or no?

A miracle presupposes the divine. Since I do not believe in the divine, then no.

[Guest]

Asimov,

I am done with you.

You either pretend to be very stupid and incapable of understanding plain English, or else you simply are not pretending.

In either case, you are not worth my time.

[Guest]

Asimov,

I am done with you.

You either pretend to be very stupid and incapable of understanding plain English, or else you simply are not pretending.

In either case, you are not worth my time.

Wow, very congenial, Steve.
We are Christians, we should have a better tone for those that are trying to get the best of us, or at least just ignore them. Insulting them isn't a very kind way to address them.

[Guest]

Asimov,

I am done with you.

You either pretend to be very stupid and incapable of understanding plain English, or else you simply are not pretending.

In either case, you are not worth my time.

Of course I'm not. Since you're incapable and unwilling to present a case for your belief system past argumentum ad numerum.

I haven't even told you my belief system, and in every single discussion I've had with you, it's been of scorn, intimidation and accusations of "irrationality".

I mention Atheism and you probably cringe inwardly.

[Guest]

Asimov,

I am done with you.

You either pretend to be very stupid and incapable of understanding plain English, or else you simply are not pretending.

In either case, you are not worth my time.

Wow, very congenial, Steve.
We are Christians, we should have a better tone for those that are trying to get the best of us, or at least just ignore them. Insulting them isn't a very kind way to address them.

I'm not trying to "get the best of you" or anyone.