The Atheist movement coming to Canada

[Tyr]

 

[Cliffy]

Why didn't Jesus replace the stone from the tomb when he rose from the dead?
Well, he was born in a barn.

 

[Zzarchov]

uh huh...... "Lack of belief in god does not remove the reasons for his creation. Thats why many Atheists do things, like put up bus adverts"

Logically that makes absolutely no sense other than "agrasping with the finger tips on the edge of the cliff" appeal to someone to rationalize ones position

Uh huh. Actually it does. If god isn't real, then it isn't god telling people to go out and convert people to have the same view as "the righteous" who are "correct".

Therefore its an inner need for man to go out and convert people to have the same belief system.

Atheists do go out and convert people and do go out and try and convince people they are right, and make people accept their view as correct. So do political parties, fans of particular movies, television shows, music or books and pretty much any other other form of human subjective behaviour.

If you deny that and try and add some form of superhuman attributes to Atheists, that shows an ostrich like desire to avoid reality.

 

[Niflmir]

You are not proving negatives. You do not prove that you don't have exact change for something, you prove what coins you have, and in doing so prove something contradictory to you have exact change.

You do not prove you do not have any more clean razors. You prove that all of your existing razors are dirty, and thus contradict that you have clean razors. Even then, all you are really proving is you haven't FOUND any clean razors that you have (you could have a box somewhere you forgot about)

You prove what is on your head, and since it is not your hat, you contradict that your hat is on your head.

The only way you can disprove something is to prove something else entirely that makes a claim impossible.

ie, you proved what coins you had, and that made it impossible that you had exact change.

There is no proof of positives and negatives, only proof and things contradicted by proof.


The Burden of Proof is also a lazy illogical principle. It allows one person to assume an inherint truth and force others to provide contradictory proof, all the while never haven proven the statement in the first place.

The illogic comes with the ease of turning the tables "Where is the burden of proof to show me god does exist" vs "Where is the burden of proof to show me god does not exist"

The correct answer is "There is no proof if god exists or not" until someone shows a proof that contradicts one of those statements by supporting the other.

I didn't realize we were splitting hairs. All I am saying is you can make a claim which is negative and then provide evidence that it is truth (even if its by contradiction), and for most people, thats proof. Heck, its even a named method: proof by contradiction.

One cannot say that the truth of a negative statement cannot be verified, which is essentially what "It is logically impossible to prove a negative" claims, your discussion is shifting the sands to imply that the statement is "It is semantically impossible to prove a negative (because you are always only proving its converse)".

It is possible to verify the truth of a negative claim.