No it is not; it's not evidence at all.
Existence ontologically is not mutually exclusive: the denial of one does not necessarily assert the other.
In this, you are indeed correct.
Atheists here
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
No it is not; it's not evidence at all.
Existence ontologically is not mutually exclusive: the denial of one does not necessarily assert the other.
In this, you are indeed correct.
And how is this interesting?
How is this different to god/gods?
Which is why there are weak atheists and agnostic atheists.
Yes it is....if I tell you have a wallet in my pocket and you examine the pocket and there is no wallet then it is evidence of absence (of my wallet being in my pocket)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_ether#Experiments
What do you mean how is it different? Can you tell me which experiment can verify if God exists or not? That's how its different....
Weak atheism is just the same as atheism except they don't want to admit that atheism requires faith so they say we're "weak atheist"..."we don't believe in God but we disbelieve in God" wtf?shaman_ said:
Evidence of the absence yes, but this evidence says nothing of the existence or non-existence of a wallet. Which is all to say that absence does not necessarily entail existence.
No it is the same thing. Scientists couldn't know for sure if the experiments to detect aether were the right ones either. The theory was left behind due to lack of evidence and better ones came along. The lack of evidence for god/gods is ignored by people because they desire to believe in magic deities - blind faith.
No the definition of weak athiesm is fairly clear. You just refuse to accept it.
Why must a god or gods exist? You've not established this. There simply is no good reason to accept that there must be a god. Ontological arguments go on about "the most perfect being," "prime movers," "original causers," etc.,
Why?
Please provide evidence.
About?
Who?
Yes. Every single one that humans have claimed exists.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
YOU disproof the Flying Spaghetti Monster then VitalOne ! Come on, disproof him. Lets see if you can do it.
i do understand religion, i was bought up in a Mormom household, but the bible just contradicts itself all of the time, yes it is a good story but thats all people should see in it, a good story!
the idea that one man will save us all, is atually quite absurd!! no i am not a believer and i do not have to proove that he doesnt exsist i have to see proof that he does exsist! and until someone can do that i will keep being an atheist
No, it's not a lack of evidence, but experimental evidence that shows that the concept of ether was wrong.....as for god/gods the lack of evidence is caused by unverifiability not someone performing an experiment and finding the concept of God wrong...it's like someone saying there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation and being unable to give an example of evidence that can be considered as evidence of the many-worlds interpretation...
Regardless if I could disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it wouldn't tell us anything about the existence or non-existence of God...it's like someone trying to disprove the theory of relativity by saying "well I don't believe in the geocentric theory" it doesn't make any sense...
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It would however neatly illustrate why the burden of proof lies with you, and not with the atheists.
So.. do you or do you not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
No, I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So you say the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesnt exist ?? Thats just pure ignorance. Prove to me he doesnt exist then!
Haha... I figured you guys would be discussing this forever.
Skinwalker and Crunchy Cat:
Your arguements which I have failed to read, do not even begin to scratch the surface of the comments presented thusfar. Don't try to lure me into being an atheist when, theism is the only perspective which captures the essence of Gods existance as existing.
Skinwalker and Crunchy Cat:
Your arguements which I have failed to read, do not even begin to scratch the surface of the comments presented thusfar. Don't try to lure me into being an atheist when, theism is the only perspective which captures the essence of Gods existance as existing.
How can you know so much about something you failed to read? Consequently, there was no argument in my post. 3 questions, 1 request, and 1 answer.
Which is more important to you, the perspective or truth?
Both crunchy cat. You also fail to meet my demands.
I stated my premise.
To me, this post is a prime example of a person who is unwilling to discuss intellectually! LoL.
scorpius says:
" why not? "
existabrent responds:
Stick around. Hopefully the arguement I actually am presenting will be put forth in the end; and we will see as I origonally intended the stupidity of most of the atheistic claims here. The logical ones, are another matter. But the prejudices aganist theists are uncalled for. Hence the thread. I'll get back around with my origional statement, and, POSSIBLY, meet crunchy cats "Demand"
I stated my premise.
To me, this post is a prime example of a person who is unwilling to discuss intellectually! LoL.
scorpius says:
" why not? "
existabrent responds:
Stick around. Hopefully the arguement I actually am presenting will be put forth in the end; and we will see as I origonally intended the stupidity of most of the atheistic claims here. The logical ones, are another matter. But the prejudices aganist theists are uncalled for. Hence the thread. I'll get back around with my origional statement, and, POSSIBLY, meet crunchy cats "Demand"
Last edited by a moderator: