Positive proof?

[pErvinalia]

We're talking about religious institutions. But you already know that. Do keep trolling.

No, YOU are trying to limit the discussion to "religious institutions," whatever that means. "We" are talking about the existence or non existence of God.

No, troll. The sub-thread that I am referring to between rainbow and those debating him is SPECIFICALLY related to his claims about religious institutions. Keep up or go and troll someone else.

[rainbow]

2. Proving a negative.
Refer to my opening post on this thread. It is generally not possible to prove a negative argument.

No.
Drivel.
This has been pointed out to you, yet you continue to persist.

Is it arrogance or ignorance?

BTW. Atheists do not exist.

[JimC]

2. Proving a negative.
Refer to my opening post on this thread. It is generally not possible to prove a negative argument.

No.
Drivel.
This has been pointed out to you, yet you continue to persist.

Is it arrogance or ignorance?

BTW. Atheists do not exist.

You've missed his point. You can negate a negative argument such as "Atheists do not exist" by positive evidence. However, without positive evidence of god existing, one can assert "god does not exist", but the assertion, although reasonable, is not proof.

[rainbow]

2. Proving a negative.
Refer to my opening post on this thread. It is generally not possible to prove a negative argument.

No.
Drivel.
This has been pointed out to you, yet you continue to persist.

Is it arrogance or ignorance?

BTW. Atheists do not exist.

You've missed his point. You can negate a negative argument such as "Atheists do not exist" by positive evidence. However, without positive evidence of god existing, one can assert "god does not exist", but the assertion, although reasonable, is not proof.

I don't miss his point. As you have shown, you can't prove a positive either.

[pErvinalia]

You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.

[Seth]

We're talking about religious institutions. But you already know that. Do keep trolling.

No, YOU are trying to limit the discussion to "religious institutions," whatever that means. "We" are talking about the existence or non existence of God.

Rainbow responded to the charge that religious belief are systematically indoctrinated in children (while atheists generally don't indoctrinate) with...

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children

... which is a sarcastic retort which implies equivalence, and was a response to mistermack, who opined...

And what atheists very rarely do, is intensively indoctrinate children in their beliefs.
They don't hold non-bible classes, or make them learn atheist books word for word.

Examples of some regimes who have systematically enforced an anti-religious doctrine of their own does not mean that mistermacks general point cannot or should not be taken at face value, or that it is reasonable to imply equivalences between most atheists not holding non-bible classes, or not making their children learn atheists books word-for-word and totalitarian communist regimes.

That parents generally pass on their values to their children, or at least try to (if and when they are bothered, of course), is not in dispute, but there is a distinction to be made between passing on values to one's children and engaging in the systematic indoctrination of credulous children at the behest of over-arching institutional bodies who define and authorises the 'proper' and 'necessary' compliment of values according to their perceived or declared obligations to their particular deity.

So no, we were talking about religious institutions, whether you know what that means or not.

No, we aren't. You would like to derail the discussion into one of moral relativism in which Atheists are superior moral beings because they don't "indoctrinate their children" (which, just by the way, some of them absolutely do). But the subject of the discussion is "Positive proof" of God's existence, not a political or moral examination of comparative indoctrination, which could be an interesting subject of its own, but is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

[Seth]

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children.

I never knew that.

LOL. That's an old one: some atheists are bad, therefore all atheists are bad.

Exactly. Almost as silly as "Some atheists, drink gin, therefore all atheists drink gin"...

(well, of course, they should, but that's another story...)

Which is just as stupid as "some theists are bad, therefore all theists are bad."

Show me where on the forum any atheist has alleged that. Even when talking about a very nasty religion indeed, with an active, murderous small minority (Islam), most of us would support the contention that a large majority of muslims are just ordinary folk, who do not wish harm on others. Even if one thinks or says that their belief system is deluded, it is not saying that they are bad people.

Oh horseshit. Attacking theists, particularly Christians, and especially Catholics is a regular pastime here and you know it.

[Seth]

To Seth

Couple of points about your arguments.

1. What you call the atheist's fallacy.
I agree that demonstrating a lack of credible evidence for a particular model of deity does not prove there is no deity,

Well, what a refreshing bit of rationality! Kudos.

perhaps conforming to a different model. But I doubt that anyone here actually is saying that. We all look at specific models of deity, and have fun debunking them. That does not mean we generalise to all models.

Not relevant. The essence of the Atheist's Fallacy is precisely the irrational "look at specific models of deity" which is used as a premise in "debunking" them. How many times do I have to repeat the simple logic that unless you have some actual evidence upon which to base your "debunking" you are doing exactly the same thing that theists do if and when they make stuff up about their deity, which is that you are acting irrationally and you are not using reason.

You say it yourself immediately above, "a lack of credible evidence for a particular model of deity does not prove there is no deity."

What you're trying to say is that you should be forgiven your irrationality because you're "having fun" "debunking" something. Have all the fun that you like, but have the balls to admit that you are just flaming people's beliefs because of your incredulity (there's a fallacy called "appeal to incredulity" by the way) and your bigoted hatred of, for the most part, people you don't even know. I'm fine with you acting the ass-clown as you march around with your hoods and robes proclaiming moral and intellectual superiority just like the KKK does, but don't think that you are any better or more morally upright than the KKK because you aren't. When you do such things you merely prove beyond any doubt that you are nothing more than ignorant religious zealots and mindless bigots who are deserving of the same opprobrium as the KKK because your beliefs and actions in support of them are just as morally reprehensible and offensive to actual rational persons as are the actions of the KKK.

2. Proving a negative.
Refer to my opening post on this thread. It is generally not possible to prove a negative argument. Thus it is not possible to prove there is no deity, with the word deity covering all possible models.

Then don't make a positive claim that God does not exist.

I have been looking for 50 odd years for evidence of deity, and that evidence is lacking.

You'll excuse me if I drown in incredulity at the proposition that you have been looking for evidence of deity for as much as ten seconds.

This does not prove the negative, of course, but it makes the idea of a deity that influences humans very, very improbable.

My, aren't you the arrogant anti-theologian. Do you have any ideal how silly it sounds for you to claim that your gross ignorance of such evidence is any sort of scientific metric with respect to the existence or non-existence of God? You are the Atheists Fallacy incarnate.

[Blind groper]

Attacking religious beliefs is indeed a regular pastime, and an enjoyable one. That is not the same as saying religious people are evil.

[Seth]

We're talking about religious institutions. But you already know that. Do keep trolling.

No, YOU are trying to limit the discussion to "religious institutions," whatever that means. "We" are talking about the existence or non existence of God.

No, troll. The sub-thread that I am referring to between rainbow and those debating him is SPECIFICALLY related to his claims about religious institutions. Keep up or go and troll someone else.

Fuck off rEv.

[Seth]

2. Proving a negative.
Refer to my opening post on this thread. It is generally not possible to prove a negative argument.

No.
Drivel.
This has been pointed out to you, yet you continue to persist.

Is it arrogance or ignorance?

BTW. Atheists do not exist.

You've missed his point. You can negate a negative argument such as "Atheists do not exist" by positive evidence. However, without positive evidence of god existing, one can assert "god does not exist", but the assertion, although reasonable, is not proof.

Precisely. And without evidence supporting that claim it is an irrational statement. There's nothing wrong with making irrational statements of course, unless you expect people to accept them without bringing that irrationality to your attention and then get all heated up when they point out that your unreason is more offensive to reason than the irrational claim of the theistic believer precisely because you purport to be rationally, intellectually and morally superior to them. At least they have the excuse that they really believe their claims, whereas those of purportedly superior reasoning abilities who seemingly deliberately and intentionally engage in irrationality and unreason while claiming that it is both rational and reasonable is about as intellectually bankrupt as it can get.

If you can't act like a rational intellectual, then please don't pretend to be one. Just admit that you're an anti-theistic irrational bigot filled with hatred and intolerance so we can give your opinions the respect they deserve and be done with it.

[Seth]

You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.

Begging the question fallacy. Your argument fails on the premise that "god" is "supernatural," a claim for which you have absolutely zero evidence in support of but which you assume is true as a premise of your argument. That's pure tautology.

[JimC]

You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.

Begging the question fallacy. Your argument fails on the premise that "god" is "supernatural," a claim for which you have absolutely zero evidence in support of but which you assume is true as a premise of your argument. That's pure tautology.

Theists themselves insist that their god is supernatural, by any reasonable definition of the word; they assert he is not bound by the natural laws of the universe. So, if atheists are to look at the issue, we can hardly be blamed for using the definition supplied by believers...

LOL. That's an old one: some atheists are bad, therefore all atheists are bad.

Exactly. Almost as silly as "Some atheists, drink gin, therefore all atheists drink gin"...

(well, of course, they should, but that's another story...)

Which is just as stupid as "some theists are bad, therefore all theists are bad."

Jimc wrote:

Show me where on the forum any atheist has alleged that. Even when talking about a very nasty religion indeed, with an active, murderous small minority (Islam), most of us would support the contention that a large majority of muslims are just ordinary folk, who do not wish harm on others. Even if one thinks or says that their belief system is deluded, it is not saying that they are bad people.

Seth wrote:

Oh horseshit. Attacking theists, particularly Christians, and especially Catholics is a regular pastime here and you know it.

Attacking the belief system, sure. Attacking the hierarchy of the catholic church for its appalling inaction about child abuse, sure (and note that such a critique is done just as vigorously by mainstream catholics and secular authorities)

But generalised attacks on theists or catholics? I think not...

[Svartalf]

You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.

but there's no evidence of it existing either

[Seth]

You can't prove that a supernatural god doesn't exist. That's what BG is properly referring to.

Begging the question fallacy. Your argument fails on the premise that "god" is "supernatural," a claim for which you have absolutely zero evidence in support of but which you assume is true as a premise of your argument. That's pure tautology.

Theists themselves insist that their god is supernatural, by any reasonable definition of the word; they assert he is not bound by the natural laws of the universe.

According to them. Why would you build an argument on such a silly premise?

So, if atheists are to look at the issue, we can hardly be blamed for using the definition supplied by believers...

Of course you can be blamed. You're not supposed to be an idiot, you're supposed to be a rational being capable of making rational and logical arguments. That you would accept such a claim as a premise for any sort of argument is an insult to reason.

Jimc wrote:

Show me where on the forum any atheist has alleged that. Even when talking about a very nasty religion indeed, with an active, murderous small minority (Islam), most of us would support the contention that a large majority of muslims are just ordinary folk, who do not wish harm on others. Even if one thinks or says that their belief system is deluded, it is not saying that they are bad people.

Seth wrote:

Oh horseshit. Attacking theists, particularly Christians, and especially Catholics is a regular pastime here and you know it.

Attacking the belief system, sure. Attacking the hierarchy of the catholic church for its appalling inaction about child abuse, sure (and note that such a critique is done just as vigorously by mainstream catholics and secular authorities)

But generalised attacks on theists or catholics? I think not...

I think so.