[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




So surely you would agree that atheism is as much a faith as religion, no? I mean, you can't prove there's no god so believing there's none has to be accepted on faith.
>>
agnostic here, while i agree with this in theory
>prove a negative
The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the one who refutes it.

Either way I find atheists far more insufferable than people who believe in God.
>>
>>13527030
No atheism is objectively true and is the conclusion of any unbiased rational person.
>B-buy you can't prove a negative; you don't have... le certainty!
Gigacope. About as relevant as claiming there is an invisible world of gorillas.
>>
>>13527030
ultimately it depends on what definition of religion and religious belief you use but
>you can't prove there's no god so believing there's none has to be accepted on faith
that's not accurate of what I believe or most atheists believe. I just don't believe in any gods. I don't claim to know or believe no gods exist, I just don't see any evidence for a God. I think the atheist-agnostic distinction is largely semantic.
>>
>>13527058
Rationality does not exist in an atheist model.
>>
>>13527030
The difference between atheism as a faith and religion as a faith is simply that there's no reason to care about atheism being true. If I am an atheist or not, the result is the same. I think that's one of the reasons atheists are so intellectually lazy, it's because they have no reason to care even about their own beliefs, let alone literally anything else.
>>
>>13527090
Rationality does not exist in a theist model.
>>
>>13527076
>I don't claim to know or believe no gods exist, I just don't see any evidence for a God. I think the atheist-agnostic distinction is largely semantic.
Then you're not atheist, you're agnostic.
Agnostics believe that we can't know whether or not a God exists, atheists believe 100% that there is no God. It's a rather important distinction in my view.
>>
>>13527108
Prove it.
>>
>>13527116
At some point when arguing religion with a theist they will inevitably admit that their belief in God ultimately depends on faith and not pure reason. Therefore the entire theistic system is based on faith and merely invents flawed "rational" arguments to justify it after the fact.
>>
File: 1604919664754.jpg (143 KB, 1422x800)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>13527048
>>prove a negative
Okay, pic related
>The burden of proof is on the claimant
Claiming "there is no God" carries a burden of proof, just because someone said the opposite doesn't absolve them of having to prove their statements. That'd be like saying you don't have to prove there is a God because someone said the opposite, or the negative, of that statement.
>>
>>13527109
>Agnostics believe that we can't know whether or not a God exists, atheists believe 100% that there is no God. It's a rather important distinction in my view
Well most people who call themselves atheists don't use that definition. technically I'd call myself an agnostic atheist, agnostic referring to knowledge and atheist referring to belief.

agnostic- literally lacking knowledge. I don't know if there's a God
atheist- lacking belief in a God

Similarly you could be an agnostic or gnostic theist. Both have a belief in a God, but only one thinks he can prove it to other people and that he knows it for certain.
>>
>>13527030
I don't need faith to believe that there isn't a 7 foot tall hobgoblin waiting to kill me at home. It's just a default position.
>>
>>13527131
math is not a good example anon. what he's referring to is a problem with inductive reasoning:
1. Every cat I've seen is black
2. Therefore all cats are black

For a negative based on observation you can't say
1. I've never see a baby-blue cat
2. Therefore there are no baby-blue cats

There obviously (probably) aren't, but you can't prove that for 100% certain unless you observe all cats, and possibly all cats past, present, and future.
>>
>>13527048
Anon every Christian post bashing atheists uses arguments that also apply to you. Agnostic and atheist are effectively the same thing in that context.
>>
>>13527131
>Claiming "there is no God" carries a burden of proof
There is no burden of proof in claiming that something does not exist, things not existing is the default state. If I say I own a car and you say I don't it's not up to you to prove I don't, it's up to me to prove I do, because the default state is it not existing.
>>
>>13527158
Something I thought was obvious but seems to be very difficult for people here to grasp
>>
>>13527158
Yes there is, you just don't know what you're talking about. The burden of proof refers to any claim, it doesn't stop being applicable when you're too lazy or incompetant to prove your claim.
>>
>>13527158
I could check title/insurance/registration and your land to see if there is a car and use that to prove you don't. ANY STATEMENT carries burden of proof. If you want to say "I'm not convinced" or "I don't believe" then that doesn't carry burden of proof. If I told you, "I don't have soda in my fridge" I would have to prove it, I could take a pic and show you, and that would prove something not existing. You're a fucking retard. I'm done with you.
>>
>>13527172
Except when you’re trying to push public policy or shit on everyone else or even just convert people to your faith because you claim your god is real, you need to prove it.
>>
>>13527030
You can't prove there are no unicorns. So I guess aunicornism is a religion literally like any other.
>>
>>13527181
That would prove I don't have a car registered in whatever country that that register is in, but it wouldn't prove I don't have a car at all, I could have one registered in another country, I could have one bought in my garage but not registered to me, I could have built one were I qualified to do so. You can't with 100% certainty disprove anything, you can rule it out to the degree it's no longer feasible to have happened, but there is no way to say with 100% certainty something isn't the case as you can with the opposite.
>If I told you, "I don't have soda in my fridge" I would have to prove it, I could take a pic and show you, and that would prove something not existing.
It wouldn't though, you could have temporarily removed it, it could be a different fridge, it could be edited out in photoshop, it could be a random picture of a sodaless fridge from the internet, there's no objective way to prove a negative
>>
>>13527183
Anyone who makes any claim has the burden to prove their claim. That's the burden of proof.
>>
>>13527181
Proving something doesn’t exist requires looking in every spot that it could possibly be to confirm it’s not there. It’s only possible under very strict parameters of location where you can thoroughly check that location and confirm it’s not there.

Using your logic I can argue that fairies exist and you’re not allowed to not believe me.
>>
>>13527244
>Using your logic I can argue that fairies exist and you’re not allowed to not believe me.
There could be some other planet/universe/dimension as yet unknown where they do exist so...meh.
>>
>>13527258
So is there any magic being I can propose exists that you won’t believe in? Goblins, elves, trolls? How about if you don’t disbelieve I need to follow a lifestyle dictated by these magic beings? You’re not doubting they exist, so it’s reasonable that you shape your life under the troll declarations
>>
File: unknowing.png (142 KB, 812x680)
142 KB
142 KB PNG
>>13527258
There is a mountain of empirical evidence that the Fae exist. Thousands encounter them every day and there's more documentation for the phenomenon than for many historical figures that were obviously real.

Obviously you're not going to (re)discover God in the same way; but it ought to be something you just intimately know. It takes an incredible act of forgetting to remove that kind of knowledge from mind, soul, and spirit. But if you really insist on firsthand knowledge of God, it can be found through a great deal of focus, faith, and patience.
>>
>>13527275
>>13527258
David Hume dealt with this like 250 years ago. He said human senses being imperfect as they are cannot necessarily provide an accurate interpretation of reality.
>>
>>13527030
Atheism is retarded because it isn't just a rejection of the Christian or monotheistic model, but all spirituality.
Meaning the atheist would have to believe that despite the universe being infinitely large and infinitely complex, that it can all be understood by hairless apes.

The idea of the metaphysical, spirits, souls, re-incarnation, might make total perfect sense to a higher being than us, but the Atheist needs to assume that the world is empty in order to reject all spirituality
>>
>>13527579
>>13527487
Well, I mean ghosts could in theory exist but if we can't detect them with our finite human senses then they may as well not exist anyway.
>>
>>13527058
>No atheism is objectively true
Prove it then
>>
>>13527579
>Meaning the atheist would have to believe that despite the universe being infinitely large and infinitely complex, that it can all be understood by hairless apes.
By rejecting your beliefs about how the universe works I'm saying I think we can understand the whole universe? No???
I'll believe in all the things you listed when I have evidence for them. I can't prove they're not real, but I see no reason to think they do.
>>
>>13527642
>when I have evidence
And what are you doing as research?
>>
>>13527579
just want you to know that nothing you said here even remotely made sense. your logic is flat earth tier. retard
>>
>>13527048
>prove
no

I believe we can have knowledge without absolute certainty
>>
>>13527643
what do you suggest? far as I'm aware there's no way to make myself experience all these things for certain unless I drop some acid.
>>
>>13527659
I suggest you learn and learn yourself well before making such asinine insinuations. I'm sure nobody has ever tried to contact a spirit before, chummer.
>>
>>13527030
>So surely you would agree that atheism is as much a faith as religion, no?
A very cute (in a pathetic way) and utterly meaningless comparison, because the "faith" of atheism is not tied to religion, unlike most "faith" in a god, and therefore it is a faith easily changed in the face of new evidence
>>
>>13527152
Do you think we can know that cats are not baby-blue?
>>
WTF People believe in things they can't prove?
Guess that means I am equally justified to believe in literally anything.
>>
>>13527667
I'm not saying you need that, but that's empirically the only way you can ensure someone has an experience with otherwordly entities.
What should I do then, huh? What book of spells will work even for a non-believer?
>>
>>13527670
Not 100%. who knows? there could be a freak mutation I don't know about. Am I pretty certain there aren't any? Yes. Same thing with God.
>>
>>13527692
Okay, normal people wouldn't resist so much to say they know that cats are not baby-blue. You're weird.
Why do you think people who say they know there is no God, have to say that with 100% certainty?
>>
>>13527726
The thing is, that's the problem with inductive reasoning. It's a well-known problem with knowledge.
In any normal context, of course anyone would say cats aren't baby blue. But if you try to prove it you only can to a point.
That's the same issue with people like OP who say "You say God doesn't exist? Prove it!"
Ultimately, it's impossible to definitively prove that. Most people would think like this:
1. I see no evidence for God
2. God must not exist

But of course, that's not enough to prove it beyond a doubt. But I would say, and most people I think would say, that this gives an acceptable level of certainty until we get new information to the contrary.
>>
>>13527734
People use induction all the time to make knowledge claims
what's special about God?
>>
>>13527755
that's my point anon. God isn't special.
but notice how the simple syllogism I made about God not existing would be mocked by theists in any debate about God's existence for making a claim about God's nonexistence.
>>
>>13527761
sorry, I wasn't entirely following the reply chain
>>
>asking for proof of a negative
kys animeposter
>>
Its worse then religion because it makes obscure metaphysical claims but has no apologetics beyond nu atheists repeating Kant and Hume talking points
>>
>>13527030

>I mean, you can't prove there's no god
okay that's fair
>so believing there's none has to be accepted on faith.
stop right there. apparently dismissing improvable claims as improvable and therefore worthless takes "faith", even though every sane human being makes similar judgement calls several times in a single day.

and besides, it's not too common to see an atheist that genuinely believes 100% that there is no way that a god exists. sure, there are plenty of atheists that don't believe in SPECIFIC gods (for good reasons), but not that literally none exist whatsoever. if you were a real christcuck on 4chan though, you would have almost definitely heard this before, so I can only assume you're trolling.
>>
>>13527030
rather then saying you can't prove there's no god its more effective to argue that the atheist world view is inherently self contradictory
>>
>>13527796
and to be honest Kant and Hume were much smarter men than Richard Dawkins or George Carlin
>>
>>13527814
I guess if you want to make a bizarre argument that makes a ton of assumptions about what atheists believe, sure.
>>
>>13527818
don't have to, atheism already makes those claims
>>
>>13527090
But talking snakes, virgin births and magic jews are totally rational.
>>
>>13527818
if Dawkins and his crew can make blanket assumptions about what Christians believe, then tit for tat
>>
No, I would not agree, tranime poster.
>>
>>13527829
whataboutism. I don't care at all what Dawkins has to say.
>>
>>13527030
You believe there is no god, that's literally it. If that's a religion for you then lulz.
>>
>>13527131
>Claiming "there is no God" carries a burden of proof,

Prove to my satisfaction that my magic space wizard doesn't exist using my standards that I can change whenever I feel like it.
>>
>>13527857
claiming something does not exist is in fact a claim.
I know Sam Harris might not have covered that
>>
File: img747.gif (1.05 MB, 498x278)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB GIF
most fedora tippers as well as most Christians fall into trap of assuming God is a cartoony anthro being who lives in the clouds and throws lightning bolts at you. this is natural, being human we tend to assume everything is like us and it's harder to visualize God as an abstract cosmic entity we can't really understand.
>>
>>13527829
Well even Dawkins admitted he's really an agnostic at the end of the day.
>>
jannies please PLEASE make a /rel/ board for these fucking orangutans. I am tired of seeing these dumb ass schizo-larpers asking stupid ass questions that have been answered gorllions of times and shitting up the board. PLEASE i am literally kneeling irl I am fucking tired of it.
>>
>>13527966
theology is a part of humanities retard :^)
>>
>>13527974
so is anime. your point being?
>>
>>13527988
wrong.
there is no anime class at the humanities department
>>
File: Russell.jpg (121 KB, 838x1198)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>13527030
Ateapotism is a religion
You can't prove there is no teapot behind Mars
>>
>>13527284
>personal experience accounts of thousands of deluded schizos
>documentation of phenomenon, just like the numerous documentation of magical artifacts and other larp shit

>empirical evidence

please refrain from breeding.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.